Posted on 02/19/2023 7:00:40 PM PST by Golden Eagle
One issue will solve internet censorship. It’s used in racial discrimination cases. Social media sites are like Montgomery lunch counters. When the proprietorship discriminates against someone he discriminates on behalf of the overall community, just like a government. The Civil Rights Act prohibits governmental discrimination against race, and the 1st Amendment prohibits governmental discrimination against speech.
Well... Nothing good can come from this.
Define “offensive.”
Free Republic is offensive to our woketard Left.
<>The Internet is not in the Constitution.<>
Neither is the US Air Force.
So you would accept Google AI’s rules?
That's the gist of the legal problem: if the platforms perform editorial work, they aren't just platforms but publishers who should be liable for what they allow to remain.
I would prefer the "wild west" rather than a regime of censorship by media monopolies.
So, you are a big internet company providing a forum for communications. You get millions of messages to publish every day, of nearly all types, on nearly all subjects. You allow some to be published, and refuse others based on content. Aren’t you then responsible for what you authorized to be published on your site?
Interstate Commerce clause, of course...
Typical dumbass liberal BS. Social “media” IS NOT THE PROBLEM. This is just as retarded as going after the NRA to stop violence in our streets. CELLPHONES ARE THE PROBLEM. All of these things like the Gonzalez killing in Paris by Islamic terrorists couldn’t happen without cellphones to coordinate the attack. Every crime that occurs these days are coordinated over cellphones. Attacking what is said by people on Free Republic, Facebook or Twitter is pretty retarded. If SCOTUS is going to “wade” into social platforms, they need to address the very mobile CELLPHONES FIRST.
“nothing good can come from this”
I am sure you’re right.
My solution:
1. Everything is allowed. A total free speech place. No liability other than by the poster. Government cannot prosecute or interfere just for speech.
2. Have a pay for play space for the lurid and porn that will always exist and exists now all over the internet. I assume pay for play makes it private.
No liability like I said for free speech but excessive Fines for platforms limiting and cancelling speech or shadowing. Probably will have to prove it in court, but we have conservative sites with bucks to do just that and make them hurt.
When it comes to illegal acts or trafficking, authorities will act like they do now and Verizon and AT@T and Apple will surrender personal records.
Oral arguments for this should be posted by 3pm Tuesday. Might make an interesting read.
#2) If I restrict what you can or cannot say, am I prohibiting your right to free speech?
Why not turn that around. If you edit and manage content, are you liable for anything that does remain? I'd say yes.
Big Tech has been trying to have their cake and eat it too.
They claim they are not publishers—and then censor and/or de-platform and/or de-monetize anyone they don’t like.
It is not the fault of the court, but I think the wrong issues are being discussed.
If you are big enough for any of this to matter then you have de facto monopoly or quasi monopoly power over the public square—and you need to be broken up under anti-trust.
try proving it wasn't you who posted it. You can appeal to the bots as the FBI who can post it takes you away for making the terrorist threats they posted under your name
Someone posted something in my identity on Twitter recently that got me banned for life , but I havent been to Twitter since I signed up many years ago and never posted. I cant see what they posted but the email said the post will be left up forever, but I am banned for life
there should be no unjust "accountability " in such a corrupt vile system until they fix this
“I think that if hosts of content actively edit that which isn’t offensive or pornographic, it makes them an editor and publisher. Under Section 230, publishers are liable for content.”
Like censoring posts about election fraud, posts from some politicians, and even just questions about vaccines?
It’s ironic that by doing that, they’ve made themselves a publisher.
So are they responsible for all content or just the content about what they have censored, both sides?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.