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
It did in fact rule on the meaning or perhaps more accurately, the intent, of S 230 - that's what this little exercise was:
" But the Platforms’ argument finds no support in § 230(c)(2)’s text or context. First, § 230(c)(2) only considers the removal of limited categories of content, like obscene, excessively violent, and similarly objectionable expression. It says nothing about viewpoint-based or geography-based censorship. Second, read in context, § 230(c)(2) neither confers nor contemplates a freestanding right to censor. Instead, it clarifies that censoring limited categories of content does not remove the immunity conferred by § 230(c)(1). So rather than helping the Platforms’ case, § 230(c)(2) further undermines the Platforms’ claim that they are akin to newspapers for First Amendment purposes. That’s because it articulates Congress’s judgment that the Platforms are not like publishers even when they engage in censorship."
Last edited by Dr. Who; 09-20-2022 at 08:22 AM.
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
Many people think the principles underpinning common carrier absolutely should apply to the likes of Verizon or other ISPs, right? Major aspects of the internet kind've already have the concepts of common carrier already 'applied' to them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizo..._v._FCC_(2014) and then subsequently, I think Trump admin cancelled net neutrality? I think it was restored? Many things are in a state of flux in this industry, but ultimately the question isn't whether or not the principles underpinning common carrier will apply to the internet as a whole, they will, the issue is going to be to what extent.
So Facebook and Twitter ultimately may escape it, they might, that could be a toss up, and you could even say maybe Facebook gets it, but maybe not Twitter, that's possible, but if you recall when Amazon/AWS terminated Parler? AWS and services like that probably fall on the other side of it.
It'll take decades, but it IS happening, slowly and surely, just like it did during the industrial age.
LWW (09-20-2022)
I agree that some aspects of the internet are quite similar to a common carrier like a cable company or telephone carrier, but the platforms and websites take on quite different characteristics that, as you implied, will need new 3rd and 4th industrial age principles to guide any legislation.
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
Its still the same basic logic of ensuring that a public accommodation cannot discriminate based on race or gender or whatever suspect classification you want. And that even applies to very small businesses as well.
CA has a case, which absolutely applied only to CA, about the right of people in CA to free expression in shopping centers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruney...nter_v._Robins
That's the 1980s, where the mall and other shopping strips held themselves out to be the public commons.
If they are a free 'FORUM' as they claim, then it definitely is a free speech issue.
If it is a content provider, one which accepts data from many sources and selects what they wish to print/publish/broadcast such as newspaper/radio/television then they have a much freer reign.
Eventually it has to be decided what they are in the legal sense, but it is totally dishonest them to present a public face as a claimed forum and a private face that claims the rights of a content provider.
More 1776, less 1984.
Make Orwell Fiction Again.
Except that there are no protected classes of speech, so the public accommodation logic couldn't be applied to prevent censorship. Under public accommodation, business can discriminate based on style of dress, political affiliation, the fact that you come from another country or if they just don't like the cut of your jib.
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