Posted on 05/16/2020 8:56:15 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan acknowledged Facebook has nearly three billion users, but she still wants it to have an "Executive Editor" to punish and censor the "misinformation" that is harming our democracy. The fact that Facebook's new Oversight Board has only two out of twenty members who are conservative does not seem to impress Sullivan.
Sullivan asserted in her Friday column, "Facebook has a huge truth problem. A high-priced ‘oversight board’ won’t fix it." That "truth problem" starts with allowing Donald Trump to be elected.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
The Janus (two face) award for journalism, nominee.
Any obscene words in a post are edited at posting with asterisks (automatically) but the word itself used will still be clear. "F**k, c**t" etc. protecting our kids.
Nothing else is needed. Its a FREE speech thing - obscenities can express thoughts more forcefully than edited language.
BTW, the federal law protecting google, twitter, yahoo, etc, etc. is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which was designed to protect kids from porn but the preamble CLEARLY states that the net is to enhance and extend free speech, NOT CENSOR IT and ONLY if you're editing/deleting speech do you become a publisher and subject to libel laws and other actions.
As just a "provider" you're immune unless a copyright issue is raised and then the "PROVIDER" need only take it down. No lawsuits - immunity. If you're shut down you have to beg for reinstatement by the provider.
(a) FINDINGS.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
(2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
(b) POLICY.--It is the policy of the United States--
(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
(4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children's access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
(c) PROTECTION FOR ''GOOD SAMARITAN'' BLOCKING AND SCREENING OF OFFENSIVE MATERIAL.--
(1) TREATMENT OF PUBLISHER OR SPEAKER.--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.
(2) CIVIL LIABILITY.--No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of--
They hide behind that last part - "otherwise objectionable". So they can object to mentions of George Washington or Jefferson because they owned slaves. They can object to your post because you made a positive reference to President Trump. They believe they can delete ANYTHING or ANYONE they think is objectionable.
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
(d) EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.--
(1) NO EFFECT ON CRIMINAL LAW.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 of this Act, chapter 71(relating to obscenity) or 110 relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, United States Code, or any other Federal criminal statute.
(2) NO EFFECT ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.
(3) STATE LAW.--
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
(4) NO EFFECT ON COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY LAW.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.
(e) DEFINITIONS.--As used in this section:
(1) INTERNET.--The term "Internet" means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
(2) INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE.--The term ''interactive computer service'' means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
(3) INFORMATION CONTENT PROVIDER.--
The term "information content provider" means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
(4) ACCESS SOFTWARE PROVIDER.--The term "access software provider" means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
(A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or Communications Act of 1934
(C) transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.
Source: https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf
That is all. For the moment. ;-) PS: Please don't cite how courts treat legislative preambles. I will simply begin with that dusty document that starts with "We the People ..." -which part of that preamble is a court going to ignore?
Be gentle - I know I've glossed over several issues. Try to help not just b***h. Thanks. ;-)
.
“Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan” proves that being a Commie and a Nazi at the same time IS possible.
Hey First TEST It - Lets assign a “Executive Editor” over YOU Maggie, Who will decide whether to CENSOR and BAN you (and it wont be anyone YOU like or believes the same as YOU).
“Arrogant and Stupid” Leftism has a megaphone these days.
Another one to be awarded the “Force Head Up Own Ass” Machine prize.
.
Time to kick A$$! No political censorship for FB, Twits, Instagram, etc.
With evidence of shadow banning, conservative account outright permanent bans, etc. a class action seeking a declaratory judgment that such actions are discriminatory, anti-free speech, violates section 230 and thus make all these “public square” forums that utilize such bans must immediately cease.
Any bans/censorship must be proved with advance notice to the poster before an independent entity to allow a deletion with a “button” for the user to click on to demand a hearing with $1000 minimum damage award for a wrongful deletion.
To avoid lengthy legislative/litigation efforts, banning entities will be declared publishers, not platforms, unless they agree to the above terms.
More later - kind of busy but now is the time. People with hundreds of thousands of followers are banned daily.
The net is our public square. Let’s fight for it.
TH54
Time to kick A$$! No political censorship for FB, Twits, Instagram, etc.
With evidence of shadow banning, conservative account outright permanent bans, etc. a class action seeking a declaratory judgment that such actions are discriminatory, anti-free speech, violates section 230 and thus make all these “public square” forums that utilize such bans must immediately cease.
Any bans/censorship must be proved with advance notice to the poster before an independent entity to allow a deletion with a “button” for the user to click on to demand a hearing with $1000 minimum damage award for a wrongful deletion.
To avoid lengthy legislative/litigation efforts, banning entities will be declared publishers, not platforms, unless they agree to the above terms.
More later - kind of busy but now is the time. People with hundreds of thousands of followers are banned daily.
The net is our public square. Let’s fight for it.
TH54
Then click on "View Replies" for an update (this post).
Helpful replies appreciated - have to carve up a downed tree.
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.