Posted on 10/03/2022 9:21:39 AM PDT by JV3MRC
The leftist Big Tech overlords may finally face a day of reckoning as the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the Section 230 law that governs how tech platforms moderate free speech.
SCOTUSblog tweeted Oct. 3 that SCOTUS granted a writ of certiorari to Gonzalez v. Google, “involving the scope of tech companies' immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.” USA Today summarized that the case will have “potentially enormous consequences for social media.” It is the “court’s first test of the broad immunity social media companies have enjoyed under a provision known as Section 230, part of the 1996 Communications Decency Act,” Bloomberg News stated.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
The Constitution is on the side of private business against government intrusions.
p
Bttt.
5.56mm
Not when said businesses are actively colluding with government to censor opinions they don’t like:
A firm slapdown of Big Tech here on Section 230 combined with getting the anti trust bill that just passed the House through the Senate, would do much to defang the Tech monopolies.
Big Tech is one of the biggest threats to freedom in America right now.
and when said businesses are monopolies.
I look forward to savoring the screeches about how “democracy” is threatened by enforcing the 1st Amendment
Trump wanted this 230 taken care of...I think it will happen just as Trump had wanted.
So now the right to censor is on the table? Another “right” taken away by evil MAGA. 😂
This is a good article to smoke out the government plants here.
Democrats & RINO's being the first and second biggest threats to America.
This conspiracy idiocy is so tiresome.
Just remember, Section 230 is what keeps FR possible.
They should be allowed to suppress non-threatening free speech about the same as the electric company is allowed to cut off service to people they don’t like.
A slippery slope. One step away from government regulating free enterprise leading quickly to government regulating individual speech.
A MUCH better answer is for rich America-First Patriots to compete and win on the open market with these jackals by creating America-First internet technology and websites.
However, if sites like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. go beyond just preventing illegal content then they are behaving as publishers and should be suable for any content or subsequent actions resulting from that content.
This is not a simple question of "private companies should be able to do as they please" or "the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to private companies".
There is currently a rise of conservative opinion among Gen-Z. This is because people on social media platforms watching non-political content (music, gaming, cooking, hobbies, etc.) occasionally came across conservative political commentary and were converted from their liberal or apathetic views.
Platforms which come out of the box as conservative echo chambers will not attract the casual viewers we hope to convert to conservatism. Those viewers will remain on the oligopolistic platforms and be subjected to merely liberal political content.
It is true that political affiliation and/or views are not explicitly protected by civil rights law, but denying conservatives the same level of connectivity as liberals on a social media platform especially during elections reeks of illegality.
I’m suggesting we compete and beat the Leftist competition however and wherever is the best way to go about it.
That’s right, and it’s Section 230 that assures that. It says lame-ass bloggers can’t sue Jim just because they think Laz defamed them.
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.