The Rennes court also said that Moulinsart had “denigrated” Marabout by contacting galleries showing his work to say that it was infringing, Huffington Post France reported, adding €10,000 (£8,500) in damages for Marabout and €20,000 in legal fees to its ruling.
No, it's you who are don't understand the first amendment. Your argument above means forced association and forced speech, ie depriving others of their rights so you can speak using their private property against their wishes. And that "tag-line", that's when someone who works for a company declares that their views are separate from the company's.
To reiterate, there are exactly zero companies with the power to say "you can't say that."
All a private platform has the power to say is to freely say "I won't say that for you," constitutional free speech which anti-free-speech stooges like logorrhea, koby, and smurfo want the government to fascistically censor.
It truly is stunning how every single person that attempts to "reform" Section 230 appears to be without any intention of ever understanding how the internet or content moderation works in actual practice.
If someone posted it and I can not read it that’s censorship. End of any discussion from my POV.
Your baseless fantasies add no value to any discussion, troll.
an accurate claim
You have never once made such a thing.
Does Trump have the ability to post on Twitter?
The same ability as anyone who doesn't misuse it to coordinate anti-American terrorist attacks. But your question is, as always, deliberately misleading as being banned from twitter does not eliminate his ability to express himself. His own blog proves as such. Done and dusted.
There’s no discussion in public forums anymore. From what I can find searching for video blog sites, and personal blogs, it’s left wing or right wing and everything else is consistently deleted!
Even of that weren't a hallucination, what you're describing is called free speech.
As soon as a site starts deleting commentary it’s no longer a free and open discussion.
In the real world, section 230 protects freedom of expression by allowing anyone and everyone to cultivate their own ideals, without idiot censors like you telling them the speech the're allowed or forced to have.
Nowhere does that say anything about censoring someone else’s
That willfuly ignorant cherry-picking is pathetic, even by the low bar you've set previously, not to mention your deliberate "censoring someone else's speech" lie.
Nowhere does that say people have a right to host or not host anything. Nor selectively decide what to allow and what to discard.
The Supreme Court, since ACLU vs Alabama says you're full of shit as always.
Nowhere does the First Amendment, the flag of the pro-230 crowd, say anything about a private non-governmental source allowing or prohibiting any form of expression.
Nowhere does any non-governmental source possess any power to prohibt any form of expression.
Except for the part (in the case against Trump, at least) where use of Twitter's "mute" feature was 100% allowed. Only "block" was unconstitutional, because it stopped people from reading and responding to the official's posts. Nowhere were the officials at all restricted in exercising their right to ignore people on any of their accounts, official or no.
the Knight v. Trump case, where the court made it clear that if (1) a public official is (2) using social media (3) for official purposes (4) to create a space of open dialogue (and all four of those factors are met) then they cannot block people from following them based on the views those users express, as it violates the 1st Amendment.
Is the one that Clarence Thomas threw out the first Amendment for in his pro-censorship rant?
What irks me is nobody focuses on the problems of the law.
It's nko their fault they don't take the same hallucinogens you do, that make you see fantastical visions such as "Section 230 allows censorship."
as long as they do not remove legal content from any user.
Newsflash: that condition violates free speech.
The first amendment protects unpopular speech.
Including the right to say "We won't host your speech for you"
If they chose to host a public open mic, or comments section,
As always, you invent a misleading analogy to oush your false claims.
then they should not have the ability to select who speaks or about what.
Well problem solved! Because currently nobody but the government even remotely has such power.
I’ll move that to a church site. If a church open public commentary, then a Setian should be protected in posting a counter to the church about the joys of Set.
Only if you want to violate free speech rights.
If a pro choice group allows public comment the forced-birther should be protected.
Only if you want to violate free speech rights.
If a gun club has an open mic the anti-gun advocate should be protected.
Only if you want to violate free speech rights.
This is very different than stating that a church, gun club, or pro-choice outlet be required to host directly such materials.
[Asserts facts not in reality]
Once a private company opens the public mic
Considering the fact that that is impossible, the rest of your disingenuous argument collapses.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature, Not A Bug
It's not the speech of the websites, but it is associated with them, which is why the hosts retain the absolute right to choose whether to have that association or not.
Unlike actual dumb-pipe utilities such as an ISP or phone company.
Everyone sees whether a piece of content is hosted on facebook, or Youtube, or twitter, or a blog - but you don't see "the data packet containing this kilobyte piece of speech was brought to you by Comcast, Cogent, amd Frontier."
On the post: Estate Of 'Tintin' Comic Creator Loses On Fair Use Grounds To Artist Putting Tintin Alongside Women
Can we get that in the US?
On the post: Appeals Court Says Families Of Car Crash Victims Can Continue To Sue Snapchat Over Its 'Speed Filter'
This is the very kind of scam Section 230 was supposed to protect against.
On the post: Florida City Officials Spend $50,000 To Find Out Who Gave Journalists A Public Record
On that note, how much did it cost for DeSantis to sic the Gestapo on that whistleblower for her sources?
On the post: Disgraced Yale Law Professor Now Defending Anti-Vaxxers In Court With His Nonsense Section 230 Ideas
Re: Dis and dis and dat
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell
Re: Re:
To reiterate, there are exactly zero companies with the power to say "you can't say that."
All a private platform has the power to say is to freely say "I won't say that for you," constitutional free speech which anti-free-speech stooges like logorrhea, koby, and smurfo want the government to fascistically censor.
On the post: Bad Section 230 Bills Come From Both Sides Of The Aisle: Schakowsky/Castor Bill Would Be A Disaster For The Open Internet
FTFY
On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell
Re:
Your baseless fantasies add no value to any discussion, troll.
You have never once made such a thing.
The same ability as anyone who doesn't misuse it to coordinate anti-American terrorist attacks. But your question is, as always, deliberately misleading as being banned from twitter does not eliminate his ability to express himself. His own blog proves as such. Done and dusted.
Even of that weren't a hallucination, what you're describing is called free speech.
In the real world, section 230 protects freedom of expression by allowing anyone and everyone to cultivate their own ideals, without idiot censors like you telling them the speech the're allowed or forced to have.
On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Repealing vs replacing
That willfuly ignorant cherry-picking is pathetic, even by the low bar you've set previously, not to mention your deliberate "censoring someone else's speech" lie.
The Supreme Court, since ACLU vs Alabama says you're full of shit as always.
Nowhere does any non-governmental source possess any power to prohibt any form of expression.
On the post: Texas Attorney General Unblocks Twitter Users Who Sued Him; Still Blocking Others
Re: Re: Moot point, semantics of same
Except for the part (in the case against Trump, at least) where use of Twitter's "mute" feature was 100% allowed. Only "block" was unconstitutional, because it stopped people from reading and responding to the official's posts. Nowhere were the officials at all restricted in exercising their right to ignore people on any of their accounts, official or no.
On the post: Despite Empty FCC Promises, Broadband Prices Jumped 19% During Trump Era
Re:
Again.
On the post: Texas Attorney General Unblocks Twitter Users Who Sued Him; Still Blocking Others
Is the one that Clarence Thomas threw out the first Amendment for in his pro-censorship rant?
On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell
Re: Repealing vs replacing
It's nko their fault they don't take the same hallucinogens you do, that make you see fantastical visions such as "Section 230 allows censorship."
Newsflash: that condition violates free speech.
Including the right to say "We won't host your speech for you"
As always, you invent a misleading analogy to oush your false claims.
Well problem solved! Because currently nobody but the government even remotely has such power.
Only if you want to violate free speech rights.
Only if you want to violate free speech rights.
Only if you want to violate free speech rights.
[Asserts facts not in reality]
Considering the fact that that is impossible, the rest of your disingenuous argument collapses.
On the post: Australian Crime Commission: Only Criminals Use Encrypted Communications
Re:
Confirmed by looking at their environmentally destructive policymaking.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: "intellectual property promotes innovation"
Too many treat copyright as squatter's rights now.
On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature, Not A Bug
It's not the speech of the websites, but it is associated with them, which is why the hosts retain the absolute right to choose whether to have that association or not.
Unlike actual dumb-pipe utilities such as an ISP or phone company.
Everyone sees whether a piece of content is hosted on facebook, or Youtube, or twitter, or a blog - but you don't see "the data packet containing this kilobyte piece of speech was brought to you by Comcast, Cogent, amd Frontier."
On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell
Re: Re:
The "America First" movement...
On the post: Trump Shows Why He Doesn't Need Twitter Or Facebook, As He Launches His Own Twitter-Like Microblog
Re: Re: Re: Re: Koby? Koby? Koby?
Sir? This is a Wendy's.
On the post: Rep. Lauren Boebert Decides To Streisand Parody Site Making Fun Of Her, Threatens To Take Legal Action Against It
Re: Re: Re: Not quite a fan of the 2nd amendment
Have you ever considered not being a deranged piece of shit?
On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell
Re: Re:
More like: "hey, you know those peoples we find obnoxious and want to kick out of our world? Come and talk about hanging them here!"
On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell
Re: Re:
Which reveals why it's little wonder that views-fascist-censorship-as-a-good-thing Koby employs that talking point.
Next >>