Posted on 11/26/2020 9:33:03 AM PST by RandFan
@ChadPergram
Just posted by Senate Judiciary Cmte:
An Executive Business Meeting has been scheduled by the Committee on the Judiciary for Thursday, December 3, 2020 at 10:00 a.m., in Room 325 of the Russell Senate Office Building...S. 4632, Online Content Policy Modernization Act (Graham)
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
Ain’t going anywhere in the house — kabuki theater is all this is.
The Republic is under assault by a massive election fraud and Linda is arranging deck chairs on the Titanic
Bookmark
thanks
Did Graham actually donate $500,000 to the Trump legal team or was it all talk?
Apparently. I scrolled through it, and it looks like it pertains entirely to disputed copyrighted content. Maybe *something* substantial is buried inside it.
Less talk, more action!
If he did, it would be from his campaign chest and not his own funds. He’ll have 6 years to replenish it if he decides to run again in 2026 so take it only as a political gesture to keep up his image and nothing more.
That would actually be great to know. I’m betting it was more smoke and mirrors, if past behavior is what we go by.
This might be it; at the very end of the text.
TITLE II--GOOD SAMARITAN BLOCKING SEC. 201. PROTECTION FROM CIVIL LIABILITY FOR ``GOOD SAMARITAN'' BLOCKING AND SCREENING OF OFFENSIVE MATERIAL. Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230) is amended-- (1) in subsection (c)-- ``(i) In general.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any decision or agreement made or action taken by a provider or user of an interactive computer service to restrict access to or availability of material provided by another information content provider.
We don’t understand how to name things. It should be called something libs could not argue against even though it has nothing to really do with its name. How about, “Internet Modernization to Protect Black Lives and a Right to an Abortion at Taxpayers Expense”. Why not? Black Lives Matter did it!
The proposed act should read “Online content compatible with the First Amendment Act”.
Yep, pointless and would never pass the House or be signed by Biden.
The net is you can't prevent someone from posting content from another "information content provider" and if someone "editorializes or affirmatively and substantively modifies the content of another person or entity" they lose the liability protections.
In other words, Jim can't ban Infowars material nor delete posts unless they are “promoting self-harm, promoting terrorism, or unlawful” - the previous standard was "otherwise objectionable".
Ain’t going anywhere in the house — kabuki theater is all this is.
Exactly. Pretending to do something while the steal goes through. How about a hearing on election fraud in PA?
We’ve outlawed birthright discrimination against people in retail establishments by declaring them public institutions. I support this. Any number of internet forums have risen to the popular class of pubIic institutions by advertising their tolerance for all political views. if we can protect people in public institutions by birthright then we can protect people in public institutions by 1st Amendment speech.
If owners of these venues don’t like it then they can get out of the business. Simple.
The problem is this legislation doesn't just apply to them. It also applies to forums like FR which exist to proudly promote a particular political view.
Since Graham has already won his reelection and won’t face voters for 6 years, I doubt if anything he sponsors is either 1) useful or 2) conservative
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.