Section 230 was never meant to deprive individuals of their 1st Amendment Rights. It was meant to protect a nascent 1st Amendment industry. Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and You Tube, have gone way beyond being nascent services. These companies with multi-billion dollar valuations don't need protection. These companies are also taking direction from members of the Democrat Party.
Section 230 does not prevent operators of social media services from taking away 1st Amendment rights. These companies have used their section 230 protection to prevent from being sued for their actions. We all should know that section 230 was put into the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to protect a nascent internet service from being held liable for the actions of the service users.
Just because these companies are private businesses, doesn't give them the right to abridge our rights granted by our Constitution. Only the US Congress and the state legislatures can change our Constitution.
Let's not forget that DOJ under Obama did the same thing, and especially targeted journalists. Plus he started and investigation on Trump as soon as he announced. Also, there's the Russia collusion investigation which started in 2016.
Then there's the matter of all of the leaking of classified information by democrat operatives, and members of the House and Senate. Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell probably leaked most of the stuff.
Vehicle manufacturers claim that they operate on razor thin profit margins. Each button, or meter added is costed estimated using several factors: cost of the device; cost of adding to the system; cost of maintenance manuals; cost of warranty; etc.
The 10 cent meter may add 5 dollars to the cost of the vehicle which may translate into 25 dollars added to the sale price of the vehicle.
Looking at this from the consumer point of view. Would you spend the extra 25 dollars not to lose power at 10 PM in a rural area with no cell service?
If Journalists are publishing confidential information then they shouldn't be protected. The person leaking the information is committing a crime and the Journalist is helping in the commission of a crime. Nothing in our laws or the constitution provides protection from prosecution.
While Biden was VP, the DOJ sent journalists to jail for not revealing sources.
Isn't it possible that Democrat operatives messed with the machines so that they couldn't be audited? Keep in mind that the Maricopa elections officials were doing some very suspicious things with the vote count.
No evidence of fraud was heard by any court. All court rulings were based on pleadings from Democrat attorneys concerning process and time.
You wrote the following in the 3rd paragraph - "Since Section 230 provides immunity to both providers and users". If Section 230 does protect both providers and users from law suits because of statements made, how is it that the providers can label user statements as false or misleading???
Senator Warren claims that she didn't write the loopholes which companies like Amazon "exploit". And yet, the loopholes were in the bills passed by Congress. Therefore, we must assume that Senator Warren either does not read the bills before voting, or she is paid lots of money to not read the bills before voting.
Hopefully, the basket of wonderful Democrats in her home state will not vote for her continued incompetence in the next election.
This goes back to 1996 Telecommunication Act. At the time, it was created to protect companies which were just getting started. It these companies were simply allowing and open dialogue without filtering content, it was assumed that they might be open to law suits because of disagreements with readers of content.
Some readers might not like or agree with the published comments. They might want to sue the authors for libel, but would also want to hold the media accountable as well. 25 years latter, section 230 is being used to allow multi-billion dollar companies the ability to censor speech, and publish libelous statements without fear of being sued. These are no longer "startups". The founders of these "startups" are now on the verge of being the wealthiest individuals in the world.
Section 230 needs to be modified to prevent blocking of protected speech, and the rights of Americans to hear (or read) that speech. How can we justify allowing these companies to publish child pornography while blocking protected speech???
Comcast offers Peacock for free, but then charges extra to view many of the available content. Don't they realize that when customers are paying $200/month for services and content that paying to watch old TV shows is not good.
Streaming services like Netflix and Hulu make money by charging a flat monthly fee.
Police Shooting
Why is this news story being presented in this site? Where's the technology issue?
(untitled comment)
Real question is why wouldn't the Girl Scouts admit boys??? Seems there are some women that want to be men, but don't want men to be women.
Reality is that the Judge should solve the problem by forcing the two organizations to merge and become the Boy and Girl Scouts of America!
Re:
I think that Nancy's final act before retiring from Congress is to hang Donald Trump from a scaffold to erected in the Rose Garden.
(untitled comment)
Nothing about all the selective enforcement policies of Obama's "I got your back" attorney general?
Section 230
Section 230 was never meant to deprive individuals of their 1st Amendment Rights. It was meant to protect a nascent 1st Amendment industry. Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and You Tube, have gone way beyond being nascent services. These companies with multi-billion dollar valuations don't need protection. These companies are also taking direction from members of the Democrat Party.
Re: Klobuchar Stupidity
Our Constitution is so clear - Congress shall make no law abridging..... Etc.
I'm certain that Demos could find a Judge that would say this is constitutional.
Klobuchar Stupidity
What are we doing??? How can we elect people like Sen. Klobuchar to office???
less terrible than Philadelphians.
I resent your statement about Philadelphians. Therefore, you have the opportunity to fuck yourself.
Question
When are our Courts going to rule that companies can not abridge the rights granted by our Constitution? Free speech for me is free speech for thee!
What Section 230 Does Not Protect
Section 230 does not prevent operators of social media services from taking away 1st Amendment rights. These companies have used their section 230 protection to prevent from being sued for their actions. We all should know that section 230 was put into the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to protect a nascent internet service from being held liable for the actions of the service users.
Just because these companies are private businesses, doesn't give them the right to abridge our rights granted by our Constitution. Only the US Congress and the state legislatures can change our Constitution.
(untitled comment)
Let's not forget that DOJ under Obama did the same thing, and especially targeted journalists. Plus he started and investigation on Trump as soon as he announced. Also, there's the Russia collusion investigation which started in 2016.
Then there's the matter of all of the leaking of classified information by democrat operatives, and members of the House and Senate. Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell probably leaked most of the stuff.
Re: Battery Light
Vehicle manufacturers claim that they operate on razor thin profit margins. Each button, or meter added is costed estimated using several factors: cost of the device; cost of adding to the system; cost of maintenance manuals; cost of warranty; etc.
The 10 cent meter may add 5 dollars to the cost of the vehicle which may translate into 25 dollars added to the sale price of the vehicle.
Looking at this from the consumer point of view. Would you spend the extra 25 dollars not to lose power at 10 PM in a rural area with no cell service?
DOJ & Journalists
If Journalists are publishing confidential information then they shouldn't be protected. The person leaking the information is committing a crime and the Journalist is helping in the commission of a crime. Nothing in our laws or the constitution provides protection from prosecution.
While Biden was VP, the DOJ sent journalists to jail for not revealing sources.
(untitled comment)
Isn't it possible that Democrat operatives messed with the machines so that they couldn't be audited? Keep in mind that the Maricopa elections officials were doing some very suspicious things with the vote count.
No evidence of fraud was heard by any court. All court rulings were based on pleadings from Democrat attorneys concerning process and time.
"mostly those controlled by angry, ignorant Republicans"
The author of this article an angry, ignorant asshole who wants speech to be controlled by those who don't want a First Amendment to our constitution.
Shut up asshole.
"mostly those controlled by angry, ignorant Republicans"
You are the only angry, ignorant asshole who wants speech to be controlled by those who don't want a First Amendment to our constitution.
Shut up asshole.
"Since Section 230 provides immunity to both providers and users
You wrote the following in the 3rd paragraph - "Since Section 230 provides immunity to both providers and users". If Section 230 does protect both providers and users from law suits because of statements made, how is it that the providers can label user statements as false or misleading???
Sen. Warren & Loopholes
Senator Warren claims that she didn't write the loopholes which companies like Amazon "exploit". And yet, the loopholes were in the bills passed by Congress. Therefore, we must assume that Senator Warren either does not read the bills before voting, or she is paid lots of money to not read the bills before voting.
Hopefully, the basket of wonderful Democrats in her home state will not vote for her continued incompetence in the next election.
Section 230
This goes back to 1996 Telecommunication Act. At the time, it was created to protect companies which were just getting started. It these companies were simply allowing and open dialogue without filtering content, it was assumed that they might be open to law suits because of disagreements with readers of content.
Some readers might not like or agree with the published comments. They might want to sue the authors for libel, but would also want to hold the media accountable as well. 25 years latter, section 230 is being used to allow multi-billion dollar companies the ability to censor speech, and publish libelous statements without fear of being sued. These are no longer "startups". The founders of these "startups" are now on the verge of being the wealthiest individuals in the world.
Section 230 needs to be modified to prevent blocking of protected speech, and the rights of Americans to hear (or read) that speech. How can we justify allowing these companies to publish child pornography while blocking protected speech???
Comcast lost $914 million
Comcast offers Peacock for free, but then charges extra to view many of the available content. Don't they realize that when customers are paying $200/month for services and content that paying to watch old TV shows is not good.
Streaming services like Netflix and Hulu make money by charging a flat monthly fee.
More comments from Shel10 >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Shel10.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt