Posted on 12/14/2020 10:11:05 AM PST by Reno89519
Dershowitz said the social media giants are acting as platforms while also acting as publishers, which he said is “not fair” because they have both censorship and immunity.
“Facebook says we don’t like this, and Twitter says we don’t like attacks on Hunter Biden. And once you act as a publisher, you’re a publisher. You know what it means — I mean, you are a publisher. And you can be sued because you’re a publisher,” Dershowitz told host John Catsimatidis. “But they are platforms. They can’t be platforms at the same time and act like publishers. They should have to check a box: If you’re going to be a platform, no censorship. If you’re not going to be a platform, then you don’t get immunity. But you can’t both have censorship and get immunity at the same time. That’s just not fair and not right.”
He added, “I think we’re going to see a revision of [Section] 230. We’re also seeing anti-trust cases now against Facebook and others. Look, this is the hardest question under the First Amendment in the 21st-century — is how to deal with these giant social media that have such an enormous impact, are not regulated … on the other hand, we can’t just let them be immune from the law. They are not above the law either.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
THE BIGGEST WINNER OF OUR NEW DEFENSE BILL IS CHINA!. I WILL VETO!
Yes, veto Section 230 until it is removed or revised. As Dershwitz says:
☐ Publisher, thus responsible for all content and no immunity. Or,
☐ Platform, thus not responsible for content and have immunity for the content.
Will Trump follow-through and veto or will he fold?
It’s not fair that our elected officials do nothing good for our country. What will be fair is when what goes around comes around.
Yes, veto the defense bill and defend that veto until Section 230 language is added to repeal or revise Section 230.
BIG AL. BTTT
>>and Twitter says we don’t like attacks on Hunter Biden
And now that NYet Times and NBC are covering Biden’s scandals, they must’ve change the rule book once again.
I hope he kept his underwear on, again.
It is their money and their ball field. No one has to play on it.
Dershowitz is right to some extent, but actually §230 needs to be enforced, not eliminated.
The big guys, such as Twitter, FB, etc. have been treated like public utilities (neutral...that is, your phone service provider carries your calls no matter what you say) but they are acting like edited press sources.
That has got to stop. People can certainly be sought and prosecuted for publishing things like incitements to violence, child porn, etc., but that comes from content monitoring of these public sources by law enforcement, and not from editorial decisions by the service provider.
And it’s not like these companies were concerned about child porn...they were concerned only about politics.
True, but what about immunity? If they are a platform with immunity, fine. If they are a publisher, editing and censoring content, do it without immunity so they can be held accountable. End of day we expect individuals and businesses to act within certain constitutional and legal bounds. Currently these big tech companies have free reign to do whatever they want without any oversight or recourse.
It's wrong to say they have immunity. They are liable for any content of their own that they publish but they can moderate other people's content on their sites without fear of liability.
Breitbart is a good example. They can be sued for libel if they publish a bad news story, but they can't be sued when they moderate (censor) their comments section. This is why at least the editor in chief of Breitbart doesn't want to eliminate Section 230 because it would mean they would have to disable comments.
It isn't as simple as publisher or not.
Played perfectly as a lawyer: (Social media) should not be able to censor people AND have legal immunity.
Everybody thinks, Yeah! social media shouldn’t be able to censor people...
Dershowitz is advocating for the creation of an entirely new class of tort causes of action “wrongful censorship”. You’ll still get censored, but now you can sue. Worthless unless they include an arbitrary and capricious standard.
There’s a very simple way to modify section 230 that will be fair to those who use the Internet.
If an organization has a yearly gross revenues of $1,000,000.00 or less, then that organization gets the protection of the law.
If an organization has a yearly gross revenues of more than $100,000.00, they they will not be covered by it.
Simple math.
Mark
The only reason they’re beginning to report the Biden scandal is to move him out, to get Harris in as potus to give Biden, Inc presidential pardon, and then work on turning the USA into the USSA, a subsidiary of the CCP and Soros and Associates.
Mark
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.