- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: BREAKING: Trump directs FCC to implement Executive Order Preventing Online Censorship
Posted on 7/29/20 at 9:22 pm to boosiebadazz
Posted on 7/29/20 at 9:22 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:Of course it will
But that won’t be addressed by removing 230.
These companies DESPERATELY want to have 230 protection. They want NO PART of not having it.
Right now, they get the benefit of protection based on the theory that they are cats when in fact, they are dogs.
If the govt says, "um, you frickers aren't cats", you watch how fast they become cats ALL ON THEIR OWN. Because they do NOT want to be dogs.
1
Posted on 7/29/20 at 9:23 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
However I don't know if I care if a private business censors your post on their site. I don't think it should be up to the government what I do or don't allow on my forum.
You don’t understand 230
Posted on 7/29/20 at 9:23 pm to Champagne
quote:
When are we going to stop calling Radical Leftists "Liberals"?
I try to use “progressive” or “Marxist” where appropriate. Younger Democrats are not liberal.
The real liberals support Trump.
This post was edited on 7/29/20 at 9:24 pm
Posted on 7/29/20 at 9:45 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
What’s the cause of action against Twitter banning you right now?
Can you sue the newspaper for not printing your letter to the editor?
Removing 230 just means I can sue twitter for you slandering me and them publishing it. If anything, this will lead to more censorship, not less.
Jesus you’re a lawyer?
Posted on 7/29/20 at 9:49 pm to Turbeauxdog
Ad homs usually means you can’t discuss the topic. Show me your private cause of action against Twitter.
Posted on 7/29/20 at 10:58 pm to RiseUpATL
quote:
So does this thing have any actual teeth? Does this bring about any repercussions to social media companies that continue to censor? What does this mean?
I believe it would now expose the social media sites to lawsuits for censoring posts. They had been shielded from that. It seems this would take those protections away. It will be interesting to see what the courts rule on this EO
Posted on 7/29/20 at 11:17 pm to Ted2010
IMO the courts will rule that 230 is unnecessary and the protections it offers are already guaranteed by the 1st amendment. Supreme court ruled a long time ago that holding someone like a bookstore liable for content they are providing to the public would have a chilling effect on free speech. It doesn't matter if the bookstore is a commie anarchist only bookstore or an Ayn Rand shrine, as long as they are not the ones writing or directly editing (changing) the content they won't be liable for it.
See this Harvard Law review article for details: LINK
See this Harvard Law review article for details: LINK
This post was edited on 7/29/20 at 11:17 pm
Posted on 7/29/20 at 11:31 pm to xGeauxLSUx
What does this mean for Alex Jones ?
Posted on 7/29/20 at 11:42 pm to frogglet
Interesting article. Thank you. I guess I would say there is a difference in a book seller simply selling a book vs. the seller altering the content of the book for political reasonings. It will be interesting to see how the courts rule. This will probably go to the SCOTUS
Posted on 7/29/20 at 11:44 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Ad homs usually means you can’t discuss the topic. Show me your private cause of action against Twitter.
Not knowing what an ad hom is and using ad hom all the tine means you’re not smart enough to engage in a serious discussion.
The censorship isn’t the cause of action .
The censorship removes the 230 protection then when someone has revenge porn posted on. Facebook, Facebook can be named in a suit because they aren’t a platform, they are an editorially curated publication.
When they can be sued for every bad thing that happens, their business model is at risk.
Posted on 7/29/20 at 11:45 pm to xGeauxLSUx
Yes, let's get the 4th Branch of Government to do out job.
Posted on 7/29/20 at 11:52 pm to frogglet
quote:
bookstore
Terrible analogy
Posted on 7/30/20 at 12:40 am to oklahogjr
quote:
I don't think it should be up to the government what I do or don't allow on my forum.
Which government? US or China?
Seems Big Tech salutes and clicks their heels when China orders them around
This post was edited on 7/30/20 at 12:41 am
Posted on 7/30/20 at 5:07 am to Presidio
We can only pray
Posted on 7/30/20 at 5:39 am to xGeauxLSUx
The simple truth is that we cannot let such a small handful of corporations that wield as much power as Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, etc., do control political discussion and significantly influence elections.
Google & Facebook control virtually all of online advertising. Facebook & Twitter control virtually all of online discussions. Google & Apple control virtually all of the mobile apps industry. Google/YouTube controls virtually all online video hosting. Google controls virtually all of online searches.
Freedom and our republic cannot survive when 4-5 companies can pick and choose who gets heard. People that will watch the country go down in flames while desperately clinging to their "free market principles" are idiots.
Tyranny enacted by corporations is still tyranny.
Google & Facebook control virtually all of online advertising. Facebook & Twitter control virtually all of online discussions. Google & Apple control virtually all of the mobile apps industry. Google/YouTube controls virtually all online video hosting. Google controls virtually all of online searches.
Freedom and our republic cannot survive when 4-5 companies can pick and choose who gets heard. People that will watch the country go down in flames while desperately clinging to their "free market principles" are idiots.
Tyranny enacted by corporations is still tyranny.
Posted on 7/30/20 at 6:01 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
People that will watch the country go down in flames while desperately clinging to their "free market principles" are idiots.
It’s not a free market when certain corporations get Government protections that others companies don’t get.
Something as simple as the government choosing what businesses are essential goes against free market principles.
Posted on 7/30/20 at 7:13 am to Revelator
quote:
I don't think it should be up to the government what I do or don't allow on my forum.
Most of you do not understand what is happening with this executive order. It is not saying that these social media companies cannot censor. They are free to censor. All they are saying is that when you choose to censor, and decide what gets posted, what does not, what is false, You are no longer going to be insulated from civil liability for defamation and libel under section 230. Now, people like Donald Trump Jr can file civil lawsuits when Twitter pulls a post claiming it was false, which is essentially calling Donald Trump Jr a liar. Under current rules, he cannot sue. under the new executive order, he and everyone like him will be able to file lawsuits. Twitter cannot handle thousands of lawsuits in every jurisdiction across America. They just don't have the money to even defend them
Posted on 7/30/20 at 7:47 am to ShortyRob
quote:
on the theory that they are cats when in fact, they are dogs.
Truth.
Posted on 7/30/20 at 9:12 am to Champagne
quote:
When are we going to stop calling Radical Leftists "Liberals"?
When are we going to start jailing them for undermining the foundations of our nation?
Posted on 7/30/20 at 9:13 am to oklahogjr
quote:
I don't know if I care if a private business censors your post on their site.
publisher or platform.... they are not the same
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News