Advisor
It is distinguishable now, but what about a few years from now? Besides, targeting these providers based on size is simply arbitrary. Laws of this nature that tell business what they can't do on their premises are not really any different than laws telling business what they must do and if they can reach in to private enterprise, why not your home?Originally Posted by Newpublius
In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
Mahatma Gandhi
Awards:
tPF Moderator
There are currently 299 users online. 36 members and 263 guests
Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes
Awards:
Senior Member
In the case of Facebook and Twitter it is not the advertisers that objected. Twitter was actually much healthier and making much higher advertising revenues when Trump belonged. When they dropped Trump they fell right back down to lower advertising revenues and started losing money again.
Facebook can blame TikTok, but they also lost a great deal of volume that attracts advertisers.
Let's go Brandon !!!
Advisor
The problem is that the same law that would stop these platforms from censoring DJT would also stop them from censoring the KKK. I don't think that advertisers would be too happy keeping company with the likes of the KKK or other supremacist organization because the association wouldn't be good for their business.
In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
Mahatma Gandhi
Senior Member
Who cares? We have nothing to fear from robust speech. I routinely fight with the anti-Semites on Gab. No one is harmed by it.
Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution as written and understood by this nation's founders, and to the Republic it created, an indivisible union of sovereign States, with liberty and justice for all.
Senior Member
But we did this already with respect to the industrial age. Again once a company becomes a 'major artery commerce' -- I don't need to define that with specificity on a message board, we have legislatures, judges and juries and the experience from the industrial age to guide us.
This isn't 'new' really. The concept and principles underpinning 'common carrier' have existed for decades.
Last edited by Newpublius; 09-19-2022 at 02:31 PM.
MisterVeritis (09-19-2022),Peter1469 (09-20-2022)
Awards:
Senior Member
Well I find the Platform's reasoning altogether lacking on this. How they get out of protection of free speech a right to censor is nearly as odd as Roe's find in the right to protect private property a right to kill the unborn.
Another aspect of their unreasonable position is highlighted in the beginning of Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling: "What’s worse, the platforms argue that a business can acquire a dominant market position by holding itself out as open to everyone—as Twitter did in championing itself as “the free speech wing of the free speech party.” Blue Br. at 6 & n.4. Then, having cemented itself as the monopolist of “the modern public square,” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017), Twitter unapologetically argues that it could turn around and ban all pro-LGBT speech for no other reason than its employees want to pick on members of that community, Oral Arg. at 22:39–22:52."
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
Advisor
The application of the 'must-carry' duty of a 'common carrier' would produce a wholly unmoderated network or platform, save for the removal of wholly illegal content. A total lack of moderation would drag these platforms down to the lowest common denominator and they would become cesspools of sociopathic expression, driving away the general public and thus reducing free speech. Even the ACLU disagrees with the principle of common carrier being applied to the web. Advancement in technology has simply created complex legal issues that don't fit the framework of 1st or 2nd industrial age principles. Hence legislation with far more specificity, like CDA Section 230, is necessary to address these unique legal issues.
In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
Mahatma Gandhi
Awards:
Senior Member
As if "otherwise objectionable" is specific and clear.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
Advisor
CDA Section 230 may well be imperfect but that doesn't mean that it can't be amended.
In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
Mahatma Gandhi
Posting Permissions
The Law and Justice Room
Reply With Quote