Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moderation is not speech?
The First Amendment would like to remind you that government action is not a lawful "consequence" for exercising free speech rights in a way you don't like, snowflake.
To wit, here's Section 230's authors in debunking some of the deliberate lies being spread about their law by bad actors:
We intended to spare websites the death from a thousand paper cuts that would be the result if every user, merely by filing a complaint about a content moderation decision, could set in motion a multi-year lawsuit. We therefore wrote Section 230 with an objective standard: was the allegedly illegal material created or developed—in whole or in part—by the website itself? If the complaint adequately alleges this, then a lawsuit seeking to hold the website liable as a publisher of the material can proceed; otherwise it cannot.
Section 230 itself states the congressional purpose of ensuring that the internet remains “a global forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” In our view as the law’s authors, this requires that government allow a thousand flowers to bloom—not that a single website has to represent every conceivable point of view. The reason that Section 230 does not require political neutrality, and was never intended to do so, is that it would enforce homogeneity: every website would have the same “neutral” point of view. This is the opposite of true diversity.
To use an obvious example, neither the Democratic National Committee nor the Republican National Committee websites would pass a political neutrality test. Government compelled speech is not the way to ensure diverse viewpoints. Permitting websites to choose their own viewpoints is.
Many individual commenters complained that their political viewpoints have been “censored” by websites ostensibly implementing their community guidelines, but actually suppressing speech.
Comments within this genre share a fundamental misunderstanding of Section 230. The matter is readily clarified by reference to the plain language of the statute. The law provides that a website can moderate content “whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”... Congress would have to repeal this language, and replace it with an explicit speech mandate, in order for the FCC to do what the commenters are urging.
Government-compelled speech, however, would be a source of further problems. Because the First Amendment not only protects expression but non-expression, any attempt to devise an FCC regulation that forces a website to publish content it otherwise would moderate would almost certainly be unconstitutional. The government may not force websites to publish material that they do not approve. As Chief Justice Roberts unequivocally put it in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (2006), “freedom of speech prohibits the government from telling people what they must say.”...
The answer to the commenters’ complaints of “censorship” must be twofold. First, many of the comments conflate their frustrations about Section 230 with the First Amendment. As noted, it is the First Amendment, not Section 230, that gives websites the right to choose which viewpoints, if any, to advance. Furthermore, First Amendment speech protections dictate that the government, with a few notable exceptions, may not dictate what speech is acceptable. The First Amendment places no such restrictions on private individuals or companies. Second, the purpose and effect of Section 230 is to make the internet safe for innovation and individual free speech. Without Section 230, complaints about “censorship” by the likes of Google, Facebook, and Twitter would not disappear. Instead, we would be facing a thousandfold more complaints that neither the largest online platforms nor the smallest websites are any longer willing to host material from individual content creators.
Eroding the law through regulatory revision would seriously jeopardize free speech for everyone. It would be particularly injurious to marginalized viewpoints that aren’t within “the mainstream.” It would present near-insuperable barriers for new entrants attempting to compete with entrenched tech giants in the social media space.
In the absence of Section 230, the First Amendment rights of Americans, and the internet as we know it, would shrivel. Far from authorizing censorship, the law provides the legal certainty and protection from open-ended liability that permits websites large and small to host the free expression of individuals, making it available to a worldwide audience. Section 230 is a bulwark of free speech and civil discourse that is more important now than ever, especially in the current political climate that is increasingly hostile to both.
Everyone has rights only to their own soapbox, no further. All Section 230 does is make exercising one's free speech online practicable by cutting the costs of lawsuits filed by malicious censorious frauds (such as those from "your moderation infringed on my rights" liars). It protects everyone's right to control their own speech free from censorship, allowing every opinion equal opportunity to carve out its own existence on the sidewalk of the Internet. Without it, the internet would be homogeneous and stale, as the screexhy trash you happen to politically align with drown out all discourse in filth intil amyone reasonable has left in disgust.
Ao you admit you're just bullshitting and don't undrrstand what you're talking about.
Your posts in this very thread prove you a liar. See how without our free speech of flagging posts, there's no way to read the thread only for sensible posts without seeing your nutjobbery.
Prior to 230 the act of moderation held a private property owner liable for editorial control when they missed things (under the premise that it would be more important to remove illegal content that that that made the owner uncomfortable).
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To people with reading comprehension.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moderation is not speech?
The First Amendment would like to remind you that government action is not a lawful "consequence" for exercising free speech rights in a way you don't like, snowflake.
On the post: Former Trump Lawyer Facing Sanctions In Michigan Now Saying The Things She Said Were Opinions Are Actually Facts
Re:
The one and only truthful statement Republicans made was saying that nobody reasonable would believe their claims about the election.
As folk like restless prove -- to date, not a single reasonable person has.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To wit, here's Section 230's authors in debunking some of the deliberate lies being spread about their law by bad actors:
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Re: Re: Re:
Everyone has rights only to their own soapbox, no further. All Section 230 does is make exercising one's free speech online practicable by cutting the costs of lawsuits filed by malicious censorious frauds (such as those from "your moderation infringed on my rights" liars). It protects everyone's right to control their own speech free from censorship, allowing every opinion equal opportunity to carve out its own existence on the sidewalk of the Internet. Without it, the internet would be homogeneous and stale, as the screexhy trash you happen to politically align with drown out all discourse in filth intil amyone reasonable has left in disgust.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Re:
Corrwct, the IRA trolls's claims had zero basis in law or reality, just like yours.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moderation is not speech?
Why ignore the fact that moderation can never, ever hit such a bar?
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You can't use my soapbox" infringes nobody's rights in the slightest.
"It's illegal for you to say 'you can't use my soapbox'." (the censorship you want) does.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Asserts facts contradicted by every piece of evidence]
On the post: As Everyone Rushes To Change Section 230, New GAO Report Points Out That FOSTA Hasn't Lived Up To Any Of Its Promises
Re:
[Jhon Smith hallucinates facts not in reality or rationality]
On the post: As Everyone Rushes To Change Section 230, New GAO Report Points Out That FOSTA Hasn't Lived Up To Any Of Its Promises
Re: What Section 230 Does Not Protect
Why ignore the fact that it's literally and legally impossible for them to do that in the slightest even if they wanted to?
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your continuing presence here proves that fantasy of yours be a baseless lie.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Re: Re:
The internet is the sidewalk.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Re: Re:
Why keep lying that the two are at odds?
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Re:
Republicans' singular goal is to wantonly inflict as much needless harm as possible on as many victims as possible.
Their demands to institute censorship by getting rid of the obstacle Section 230 poses to it is but one facet of their goal.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ao you admit you're just bullshitting and don't undrrstand what you're talking about.
Your posts in this very thread prove you a liar. See how without our free speech of flagging posts, there's no way to read the thread only for sensible posts without seeing your nutjobbery.
On the post: As Everyone Rushes To Change Section 230, New GAO Report Points Out That FOSTA Hasn't Lived Up To Any Of Its Promises
Re: Not surprised at all
They're called "Do Something" laws. 100% about appearance, 0% about positive effect.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How do you know it's something you don't want to see until you've seen it, dumbass?
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Re: Re:
Not outside of the erroneous Prodigy ruling
On the post: Disproving The Nonsense About The FBI & Jan. 6th Would Be Easier If The FBI Didn't Have A History Of Entrapping People In Made Up Plots
Re: It's just coincidence that my sessions STOP working, right?
[Hallucinates facts not in evidence]
Next >>