Posted on 10/30/2020 8:05:39 PM PDT by Helicondelta
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
Liberalism is becoming very unseemly and unpopular
Censorship!
Shutdowns !
No music ! No gatherings ! Well shut off your power !
No Halloween ! No thanksgiving !
Rioting and looting ? Oh sure. Fine
They’re DONE WITH
I’m sure this letter will be used as evidence in court cases against twitter.
FR is not a Section 230 platform.
That’s the difference.
As tempting as it is to think laws only apply to those we don't like, that's not the case.
This is really simple. The relevant part of Section 230 says:
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"
That's it. Nothing about being publicly traded or private. Nothing about being a small private forum vs. a big social media company.
It applies to all "interactive computer services". The argument is over whether we should change that but the current law is clear, and FR probably wouldn't exist without it.
People who tell you the big techs have special protections either don't know what they're talking about or are lying to you.
FR is an LLC.
It still isn’t a section 230 platform.
“Nothing about being publicly traded or private. Nothing about being a small private forum vs. a big social media company... People who tell you the big techs have special protections either don’t know what they’re talking about or are lying to you.”
Well, the second amendment existed long before 230.
230 simply shields the owners of “interactive computer services”. When you remove this, the second amendment still exists. And the C-suite executives still do not have the right to use publicly traded companies as their own piggy banks or their own soap boxes. The related laws have nothing to do with the existence of 230.
Do you really think that striking down or removing 230 would prevent Jim from zotting those who break FR rules? Free speech and freedom of assembly still apply.
Owners of companies have free speech. Owners of Google, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, et al, do as well. BUT the owners of these companies are NOT the executives. They are the shareholders. There are specific legal restrictions on the fiduciaries of publicly traded companies to protect the shareholders (i.e. owners). The C-suite execs continue to rape, pillage, plunder, and steal from the markets that have enabled them to get rich. They should be held accountable for their crimes.
I suggest firing squads.
I posted the wording in the statute.
Can you point me to this LLC exemption you're referring to?
Why wouldn't those freedoms apply to Twitter and FB as well?
Owners of Google, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, et al, do as well. BUT the owners of these companies are NOT the executives. They are the shareholders.
Mark Zuckerberg is the CEO of Facebook and its largest shareholder.
Jack Dorsey owns $500M worth of Twitter and is its CEO.
Your distinction doesn't work.
There are specific legal restrictions on the fiduciaries of publicly traded companies to protect the shareholders (i.e. owners). The C-suite execs continue to rape, pillage, plunder, and steal from the markets that have enabled them to get rich. They should be held accountable for their crimes.
You may want to do a little reading on corporate liability shields.
Point out where an LLC is a section 230 platform.
LOL. It's not, unless it's a provider of an interactive computer service, like FR, in which case it is.
Free Republic, LLC is a non-commercial, limited liability company founded and operated by Jim Robinson (jimrob@psnw.com), a private citizen of Fresno California.
http://www.freerepublic.com/home.htm
Perhaps you should learn about the site...
Oh, I didn't realize FR was one of those magical LLCs that are exempt from US law.
I'm still a little puzzled why you don't show me where this LLC exemption is documented.
I’m puzzled why you think a privately owned web forum that is an LLC would be affected by section 230.
Please tell us how private property doesn’t work anymore?
Because that is more akin to how this site is.
You seem to have a somewhat confused notion of what an LLC is.
It's a type of corporation, as are C corps (most of the large public companies) and S corps (most small businesses).
An LLC can have an unlimited number of members (shareholders), just like a C corp can have unlimited shareholders.
There are differences in how owners are added and some administrative stuff but they're essentially the same.
It has nothing to do with private property - they both are - it's just that general investors can buy stock in a public C corp and LLC members have to be invited.
Facebook could choose to "go private" and reorganize as an LLC tomorrow and it wouldn't change a thing about their adherence to 230.
“Why wouldn’t those freedoms apply to Twitter and FB as well?”
“If an LLC is treated as a corporation, it is prohibited from making contributions to candidate committees, but it can establish an SSF. It may also give money to IEOPCs. If it is considered a partnership, it is subject to the contribution limits for partnerships... If a single member LLC has not chosen corporate tax treatment, it may make contributions; the contributions will be attributed to the single member, not the LLC... Campaigns are prohibited from accepting contributions from certain types of organizations and individuals. These prohibited sources are:
Corporations, including nonprofit corporations (although funds from a corporate separate segregated fund are permissible)
Labor organizations (although funds from a separate segregated fund are permissible)
Federal government contractors
Foreign nationals
Contributions in the name of another”
“Mark Zuckerberg is the CEO of Facebook and its largest shareholder.”
More significantly, he has CONTROLLING INTEREST. However, because it is a publicly traded company, the above restrictions apply to FB also. It is illegal and criminal for Zuckerberg to allow his employees to be paid by FB for doing work for a campaign. That is one of many types of “contributions” which are not necessarily money. Zuckerberg encouraging his employees on company time and/or using company resources to block or promote certain political views in favor of candidates or political parties is a CRIME. For Jim to do so is free speech—his and the LLC’s. For Zuckerberg to do so is no less criminal than embezzling funds. And yes it does make a big difference in the eyes of the law. AND there is a good reason for this distinction. Jim is not using your and my 401k to push his political views or to make unprofitable financial decisions that put other people’s money at risk.
“Jack Dorsey owns $500M worth of Twitter and is its CEO.”
As I pointed out already, it is a small stake. He is mainly an executive. Shares serve as a form of compensation rather than representing a right for executives to use the companies they run as personal piggy banks OR personal soap boxes from which they misspend company funds for their own personal, political agendas. This does NOT apply to FR.
“Your distinction doesn’t work.”
Your ignorance on the matter does not negate the reality.
“You may want to do a little reading on corporate liability shields.”
That is the opposite of what you think it means. Limited liability is primarily to protect investors from personal financial liability for the debts of a company or bad decisions made by its management (or due to bad luck, etc.). It means shareholders cannot be made to pay the debts of a company that goes bankrupt or is sued, etc.
But it is complimentary to the idea of fiduciary responsibility. You should finish reading the very article you posted:
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/can-officer-corporation-held-personally-liable-54650.html
Pay special attention to Illegal Activities, Fiduciary Duties, and Piercing the Corporate Veil. These underscore what I’ve been saying all along. The article is also only addressing the basics. It does not address the specific free speech issues we are discussing.
Further info:
230 was originally supposed to foster free speech by shielding platforms from liability for the actions of its users. Instead, big tech used it to prohibit free speech and replace it with executive approved speech. Apart from 230, there was a concern as to whether companies like YouTube or Free Republic (even though YT is public and FR is private) could be liable for things like defamation when platform users engage in such conduct. This is still a concern. However, Big Tech is doing the OPPOSITE of what 230 intended because they are jumping in to control speech as if they were liable for it. Companies can engage in free speech, but companies can also be liable criminally and civilly for the actions of its officers.
Hey, I just remembered. Google's an LLC!
So I guess they don't have anything to worry about.
Again, IF you’re so concerned about it, why not simply ask the site owner instead of arguing with everyone?
Or is that too hard?
Or are you simply Concern Trolling?
It’s all fun and games until the federal government tells Jim he can’t zot people.
The partisan Democrats at Facebook shadow banned Mark Levin today. They totally banned a New Jersey women for Trump group (29,000 members) a few days ago. Meanwhile, no Fake Newsers have been banned for 4 years of false Trump-Russian conspiracy theories.
But it will always be “but it’s a private company” armchair fun and games to people like you while radical Democrats cement their totalitarian state in what was formerly the United States of America. Take off your doctrinaire blinders and open your eyes. This is a shooting war going on now. Democrats are firing live rounds at you and me.
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.
