CONGRESS MUST AMEND IMMUNITY LAW PROTECTING SOCIAL MEDIA

BAD NEWS JOURNAL ^ | MAY29, 2020 | BAD NEWS JOURNAL

[street_lawyer]

CONGRESS MUST AMEND IMMUNITY LAW PROTECTING SOCIAL MEDIA

ISSUE: Congress has to amend the statute, which of course they will not. Meanwhile we are supposed to be placated by the expectation that Trump is actually going to accomplish something. It’s the same shell game that has me pulling my hair out. BNJ would argue the case. Napolitano, Levin etc won’t agree for sure, but here goes:

[Enlightened1]

ONLY to websites that behave like Publishers ( thatcensor conservatives, Patriots, Constitutionalists, etc..) like Twitter, Facebook and Youtube.

You do not want to do it across the entire web because that would be a censorship in itself of free speech by saying everyone is liable for any post or email.

[Gene Eric]

Public companies, revenues, and subscriber base could be used to determine what’s subject to regulations.

There’s not much in between the few big guys and the many little guys.

[Lurking Libertarian]

If section 230 were repealed, FreeRepublic would not stay in business for a week.

[sergeantdave]

“If section 230 were repealed, FreeRepublic would not stay in business for a week.”

Of course it would. Libertarians are always in a screeching panic about everything.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Of course it would.

If section 230 were repealed, JimRob could be sued for libel for any comment anyone posted on FR. Even if 99% of the lawsuits were dismissed, the legal fees would bankrupt FR.

[sergeantdave]

Nope. You’re full of incoherent libertarian crap.

If Soros bought every gun shop in America and refused to sell weapons and paid off crooked politicians to forbid new gun shops from opening, libertarian lunatics would be in favor of that because...it’s a Soros private business.

[TBP]

Why not repeal that section?

[trebb]

FR isn’t a de facto social media entity like Twitter and Facebook - it is also self-described as a CONSERVATIVE platform...if Rachel Maddow can get away with actual slander by being deemed a purveyor of opinions, we should be perfectly safe.

[street_lawyer]

I understand that there are tons of articles and that not everyone has the time to read everyone. I am also guilty of reading a headline and maybe the first paragraph and not getting the whole story. So if you read the article you would realize that the section was meant to protect children.

ARGUMENT: The intent of the legislature was to protect children and insulating social media platforms from disallowing obscene material to be posted. But it is being used as a political weapon. That’s not what congress intended. The phrase “otherwise objectionable” according precedent on statutory interpretation refers to the same type of material as what preceded it. Maybe taking down what Trump tweets is proper since it is harassing in nature, but taking down Dr. Erickson from Facebook NO WAY is that the “same type” of material. https://badnewsjournal.com/social-media-legislation

[street_lawyer]

ONLY to websites that behave like Publishers

That's exactly the point that Trump is trying to make. Also social media is the modern public square where speech is guaranteed. There is already a circuit appellate decision that let Facebook off the hook for taking down content it didn't like. the article mentioned the name of the plaintiff the case is 753 F.3d 1354
Larry Elliott KLAYMAN, Appellant
v.
Mark ZUCKERBERG and Facebook, Inc., Appellees.