Posted on 10/14/2020 4:43:07 PM PDT by RandFan
A Supreme Court justice has urged his colleagues to tackle the issue of immunity for social media platforms. On Tuesday, Justice Clarence Thomas asked the court to consider scaling back Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
The section in question has served as a shield for social media companies, protecting them from content users upload to their platforms. When it comes to content posted on their sites, these companies have argued they are more like distributors of information than publishers.
In most cases, the legislation grants immunity from legal prosecution, should a user post content that is deemed illegal or defamatory. The Supreme Court recently denied a request to hear a case against one of these internet based companies and its so called “product.”
Justice Thomas agreed with the court’s decision to deny the hearing. However, he has said interpreting the section too widely may have serious consequences.
Representatives from both sides of the aisle have criticized the section for offering protections to companies that are far too broad and allowing misinformation to spread rampantly.
Justice Thomas offered an opportunity for the court to look back on the legislation and perhaps create a precedent for determining limits on what freedoms the section should provide.
I hate that this is something someone thinks needs to be regulated.
Who, in a free society, where speech is supposed to be free, gets to decide what is information and what is misinformation?
Damn it, let the people decide, with access to all the information.
Not some arbitrator from the government or an uber-Left tech company.
Fine.
And when some Leftist soy boy says something salacious and slanderous, we can sue the deep pockets of silicon valley.
Everyone wins!
What they’re doing amounts to censorship, suppressing one side’s views and comments while promoting the other side’s. They should be and must be crushed for it.
Really?
bump to #5 *7 - this thread
Would love to go back to pre-Twitter and pre FB days.
The real conflict of interest with Social Media sites is that they sell advertising for the topics they essentially ban. I see this in Google all the time.
For example - Google knows my politics and targets their ads to my interests. So what happens? Let’s say I google “Climate Change Scientists...”
I see no ARTICLE that supports my POV, but all of the articles placed in their paid ad spots have titles that look interesting.
Trust me, if they decided to could CHARGE US to read that NY Post story they would do that instead of banning it.
This is not so much the issue as is the one way censorship while claiming to be neutral.
Did you think to file a suit?
The section 230 provisions will be nullified by the SCOTUS.
It will NOT come about through legislation.
Amy Barret makes it a near certainty.
Tech stocks would drop by 50% or more in a matter of days as people would try to cash out their winnings...it will turn into a frenzy to save as much as you can before it is gone.
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.