Posted on 01/09/2021 8:02:25 AM PST by USA Conservative
Twitter permanently banned Trump from the social media platform Friday, citing the risk that he would incite further violence. He had 88.6 million followers.
Back in October President Donald Trump tweeted “REPEAL SECTION 230!!!”
Trump allies and conservatives have cried censorship over Trump’s ban.
Late Friday, President Trump tweeted from the @POTUS Twitter account, accusing Twitter of silencing him and his supporters. All four tweets were then deleted.
Twitter also permanently suspended the @TeamTrump account for ban evasion, the company said late Friday.
Also, millions of mostly conservative accounts were removed.
By banning Trump and mass banning conservatives today, Twitter just LOST Section 230 protections.
By taking such action, they are now considered a Publisher according to Trump’s executive order on preventing online censorship.
From WhiteHouse.Gov:
Image below:
230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.
Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.
Twitter’s stock is tanking hard and if they lose section 230 protection they could get sued by everyone.
Twitter officially is not targeting conservatives according to their statement:
Even do American patriots on Twitter claim otherwise:
Section 230 was developed in response to a pair of lawsuits against Internet service providers (ISPs) in the early 1990s that had different interpretations of whether the service providers should be treated as publishers or distributors of content created by its users. After the passage of the Telecommunications Act, the CDA was challenged in courts and ruled by the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997) to be unconstitutional, though Section 230 was determined to be severable from the rest of the legislation and remained in place. Since then, several legal challenges have validated the constitutionality of Section 230.
“Time to fight back! Twitter is going to get sued out of existence. “
Fighting back must needs to be more than clamping down on Twitter and Facebook.
First there must be alternative posting sites to compete with Twitter and Facebook.
Second the companies that host the sites must not have arbitrary power to shut down sites.
Who is it that hosts Freerepublic? Haven’t there been concerns that they might them (us) off?
Yes, interesting change
Not gonna happen.
Yes, and when I go to sign up, all I see is a blank screen.
Something strange is happening.
Maybe Trump should buy some network airtime and speak directly to the American people. Keep the grievances about the stolen election to a minimum.
Instead, talk about the challenges we now face. Perhaps he might have time to set up a way for the American people to contact him directly. And tell us about it.
I think FR is private; hence the donation drives.
I don’t think anyone controls FR, except the mods.
.
Twitter/Facebook/etc have committed suicide by their own will.
They don’t believe in Free Speech and are guilty of colluding with treason. So be it.
.
“I don’t think anyone controls FR, except the mods.”
I’m not clear on this, but there’s such a thing as a web server. They can be small. My brother has one.
Ordinarily, different folks like Freerepublic have their “web page”. It is hosted on a web server. Maybe Freerepublic has its own web server. A web server is a computer running software that makes it a web server..
Then there’s the matter of being in the “phone directory” so that when you type in “www.freerepublic.com” the phone directory (called a DNS server) converts “freerepublic.com” to the IP address which is a number and is the address that the internet (routers, etc.) understand.
There’s an organization that manages the names like “freerepublic.com” and also the IP addresses. Management is needed so the names and IP addresses are kept unique.
My point is that that organization is a “big brother” and theoretically could keep “freerepublic.com” out of its lookup mechanisms.
If they did then the freerepublic people would have to give us their ip address so we access their site directly.
Or, that organization I suppose could not even allow freerepublic to have an IP address that worked.
Then freerepublic would be completely shut out of the internet.
Thus big brother controls internet.
get off of there...jeesh
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.