Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: raiderboy

More particularly, they are statutorily shielded from civil liability for content on their websites because they are considered a “platform” as opposed to a “publisher”. They can make a choice: accept liability for any illegal content on their site, or allow all legal content on their site. They cannot have it both ways.


5 posted on 09/12/2018 3:21:37 PM PDT by Behind the Blue Wall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Behind the Blue Wall

That is interesting. A statute cannot alter freedom of speech. I know the statute you refer to and it removes them from “liability” for anything placed on their platform. It does not allow them to discriminate . Your point is well taken. What hat do they want to wear? But note carefully the exact language of the 1st Amendment “ Congress shall make NO law abridging the freedom of speech... “ “No “ means no law!!


10 posted on 09/12/2018 3:34:27 PM PDT by raiderboy (Trump promised “shut down the government” in September; if no wall!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson