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.
He has earned the position of Chief Justice.
Wedding Vendors: businesses which cannot discriminate based on the 1st Amendment
UNequal protection, anyone?
While this may seem like a good idea I have my doubts. Getting rid of that immunity would lead to massive censorship and we would be at the top of the list.
There are ways to target Facebook/Twitter i.e apply it to companies with a turnover of at least a billion dollars.
That catches them but leaves smaller operators alone.
Unfortunately Thomas cannot bring up cases to federal courts, and then rule on them.
But others can. There are roughly 60 MILLION conservatives in this country who are being screwed over by tech companies, illegally, providing billions of dollars (in in-kind contributions) to the Democrats to make sure we lose the election.
But, sadly, none of the 60 MILLION conservatives have thought to bring a lawsuit against these companies, to get injunction against what they’re doing.
Perhaps the Dems are right, we are IDIOTS.
I cannot find a way to distinguish them from a newspaper. They sell advertising, have a medium they fully control, decide what stories you see, and everything on their site must conform to their editorial point of view.
They are publishers, not a mere neutral channel.
If there aren’t any cases before the court, why is he offering up suggestions on the topic?
Nonsense.
What do you call the massive censorship of conservatives and Republicans that Twitter and Facebook are doing right now, including today's massive blocking of the Hunter Biden corruption story?
Not sure
but it seems timely !
The FReepaton?
Since FR does not sell advertising space the rules are different.
If Facistbook wants to rely on free will donations and not sell advertising space they are free to do so. They will then be able to control content to their evil little hearts content.
Atleast with newspapers if you pay for advertisement you know it’s being seen.
If Social Media platforms can throttle back your political posts because they do not want Trump to be helped by them. How to big and small businesses really know that their paid ads on social media are not getting throttled back as well in order to help throttle back the Trump economy to help their preferred candidates on the left?
(The analytics cam always be manipulated)
Nonsense.
What do you call the massive censorship of conservatives and Republicans that Twitter and Facebook are doing right now, including today’s massive blocking of the Hunter Biden corruption story?
++++
No doubt the current level of censorship is very high, perhaps the use of massive is appropriate. But could it worse? I mean really worse. Super massive worse. Like disallowing any post reflecting Free Republic.
I just believe it could be much worse than the admittedly high level of censorship we are currently experiencing.
I see what they did there.
We're already being heavily censored. They're all acting as publishers, not merely platforms.
I see what they did there.
True enough? Could the censorship get worse? I think so. All they need to do is to state they have no choice because of the need to avoid expensive litigation.
They're getting away with the censorship without any consequences already.
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.