Posted on 10/09/2024 7:16:43 AM PDT by Lazamataz
Hillary Clinton said on CNN this weekend that repealing Section 230 of federal communications law should be a top political priority.
The former secretary of state's comments are a reminder that this vital protection for free speech is far from safe, even if we seem to be on the other side of peak anti-230 politics.
Why Politicians Hate Section 230
For anyone who needs a quick refresher: Section 230 protects digital service providers and users from liability for the speech of others. It's really that simple, despite a lot of misinformation about Section 230 that gets thrown around. Section 230 is why Facebook isn't liable if someone uses its messaging system to set up a drug deal; it's why Reason isn't liable if one of our commenters posts an actionable threat.
The law is vital for allowing free speech to flourish online, because without it companies would have a strong incentive to suppress much more user-generated content. It's vital for companies that want to rein in certain sorts of speech on their own specific platforms as well—allowing them to moderate and suppress spam, hateful rhetoric, pornography, or any other types of speech they find objectionable. (It does not require the moderation of these types of speech. It merely makes it OK for companies to do so without taking on additional legal liability.)
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
But, beyond that, her immediate instinct is to destroy another Constitutional protection. That's notable in and of itself.
Private citizen Hillary should go back to vacations
I’m sure brilliant Kamala Harris will have something to say about this.
“The law is vital for allowing free speech to flourish online, because without it companies would have a strong incentive to suppress much more user-generated content.”
Right now they have it both ways. They have full editorial control and act as government censors, AND they are protected from lawsuits.
Maybe with all their child porn, revenge porn, etc... they SHOULD have no more protection than a magazine editor.
And then there is the fact that they steal creator content all they want and claim it wasn’t them because they are not editors.
They lost the right to 230 protection when they started being editors and had FBI agents sitting in their offices.
“Section 230 is why Facebook isn’t liable if someone uses its messaging system to set up a drug deal”
Maybe they -should- be. Almost immediately they can identify and add their “fact check” or block it if someone who posts something against the Covid vaccine, something about the stolen 2020 election, election humor, etc.
Yet somehow, child porn, dope deals, human trafficking just elude them. Hell Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Mullahs had Facebook pages when Trump was banned.
I wouldn’t mind seeing Facebook getting sued when the next tranny or islamic terrorist shoots up a place and had a long Facebook presence in a “trannies fight back” or a Hamas homepage.
It’ll be 77 in a few days.
Crappy situation.
CAN WE PLEASE REPEAL HILLARY???
I actually agree that Sec. 230, as its been interpreted, needs to be repealed and replaced. It’s nothing but a shield and sword for BigTech to use to corrupt the system and allow cancel mob attacks on innocent people.
” There does need to be a remedy for the latitude these companies enjoy to manage their content editorially,”
The entire point of 230 is that they are NOT supposed to be have editorial control like a newspaper or TV station. They are protected by 230 because they are supposed to be like the phone company, a completely neutral channel.
If they want editorial control, they do not deserve lawsuit protection.
What are wearing today Hillary? Is it a pink pantsuit to match your purty pink panties? Or is it totally commie red instead of just socialist pink? Asking for a friend who happens to be an active member of the “basket of deplorables”.
Because there are powerful forces within the Democratic Party who she is in contact with. Think of her as a window into Schumer's mind. Schumer is nothing, if not clever and scheming. Nothing could be better for the health of the Democratic Party than effectively shutting down the internet. If she had her druthers, Jim Rob would have been hit with a multimillion dollar law suit the minute anyone on this forum mentioned Monica Lewinsky. Regardless of the merits of the suit, it would be crippling. Free Republic could not exist if they get their way.
If section 230 is repealed, Free Republic will cease to exist along with many other conservative websites. This is why they want to repeal it.
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.