Lawsuit Says Trump's Social Media Crackdown Violates Free Speech (nytimes.com) 237
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: President Trump's crackdown on social media companies faced a new legal challenge on Tuesday, as a technology policy organization claimed in a lawsuit that he violated the companies' right to free speech with his executive order aimed at curtailing their legal protections. The nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology says in the suit that Mr. Trump's attempt to unwind a federal law that grants social media companies discretion over the content they allow on their platforms was retaliatory and would have a chilling effect on the companies.
The lawsuit -- filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia -- is indicative of the pushback that the president is likely to face as he escalates his fight with social media companies, which he has accused of bias against conservative voices. It asks the court to invalidate the executive order. [...] "President Trump -- by publicly attacking Twitter and issuing the order -- sought to chill future online speech by other speakers," its filing said. The center added, "The order clouds the legal landscape in which the hosts of third-party content operate and puts them all on notice that content moderation decisions with which the government disagrees could produce penalties and retributive actions, including stripping them of Section 230's protections."
The lawsuit -- filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia -- is indicative of the pushback that the president is likely to face as he escalates his fight with social media companies, which he has accused of bias against conservative voices. It asks the court to invalidate the executive order. [...] "President Trump -- by publicly attacking Twitter and issuing the order -- sought to chill future online speech by other speakers," its filing said. The center added, "The order clouds the legal landscape in which the hosts of third-party content operate and puts them all on notice that content moderation decisions with which the government disagrees could produce penalties and retributive actions, including stripping them of Section 230's protections."
Bias against conservative voices? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's easy to confuse bias against lies and mis/disinformation with a bias against "conservative voices" when conservative voices are constantly spouting lies and mis/disinformation.
Re: Bias against conservative voices? (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the brits keep wondering why Americans have so many periods.
Re: Bias against conservative voices? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't need Glenn Greenwald or WaPo or anyone else to tell me about Trump's lies. I use my own brain. I see them everyday on TV coming directly from Trump's fish-mouth (how does he do that?). He frequently says things and then, within a day or two (or sometimes a week or a month), says that he never said what he said in spite of there being video and millions of witnesses to him saying it. He claims global warming or climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese, he claims Obama wasn't born in the US, he claims millions of undocumented aliens voted in the last presidential election. Those are just three of thousands of easily verifiable lies.
Maybe now you're gonna tell me it's all AI-generated deep-fakes and Trump never said any of those things.
Re: Bias against conservative voices? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't need Glenn Greenwald or WaPo or anyone else to tell me about Trump's lies. I use my own brain. I see them everyday on TV coming directly from Trump's fish-mouth (how does he do that?). He frequently says things and then, within a day or two (or sometimes a week or a month), says that he never said what he said in spite of there being video and millions of witnesses to him saying it. He claims global warming or climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese, he claims Obama wasn't born in the US, he claims millions of undocumented aliens voted in the last presidential election. Those are just three of thousands of easily verifiable lies.
Maybe now you're gonna tell me it's all AI-generated deep-fakes and Trump never said any of those things.
You may not need this, but others are too trusting, too blind or don't want to spend time validating the message. This tools are useful to the people in this group, who are willing to start seeing what is on the other side of the mis-truth.
Myself, I simply go with the attitude that everything he does is self serving. Anything he does that is not apparently self-serving, probably is indirectly.
Re: Bias against conservative voices? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I see them everyday on TV coming directly from Trump's fish-mouth
Maybe it would be healthy for you to take a break from watching someone you clearly hate every day? That's clearly stressful, bad for your blood pressure, and accomplishes nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Amen brother! Unfortunately, he's hard to escape since he shows up everywhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Hardly. Don't watch TV, don't watch political YouTube, enjoy the rest of life.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
If you take your meds, maybe the voices will go away.
Certainly not actual people want to talk to you. Only the voices.
AC [Re:Bias against conservative voices?] (Score:5, Insightful)
If you take your meds, maybe the voices will go away. Certainly not actual people want to talk to you. Only the voices.
Pretty much, when anybody uses the term "Rethuglican" you know that they have nothing useful to say. (Likewise the term "libtard".)
But we already knew this right from the start-- the part where he posted as "Anonymous Coward".
Collusion, conspiracy [Re:Bias against conserv...] (Score:2, Insightful)
Mueller explicitly states there was no conspiracy. None. Explicitly related to conspiracy.
Close, but not quite. He said that the investigation did not establish that those particular contacts amounted to conspiracy.
A number of witnesses refused to talk to him, and a number of documents were not made available due to claims of executive privilege. "Did not establish" does not mean "did not happen."
Re: (Score:3)
So absent any proof or evidence - we will assume the party is guilty. Is that what you're saying? If you look at the recently released secret testimony of 53 top officials (including Comey, Brennan, Rice, Clapper, and many more) - not a single one said they had any evidence of collusion or conspiracy. Not a single one. No evidence.
Seriously, if you're going to pass judgment in absence of evidence - well, we're a banana republic for certain, then.
Re:Collusion, conspiracy [Re:Bias against conserv. (Score:5, Informative)
So absent any proof or evidence - we will assume the party is guilty.
That's not what happened here though - you're distorting the facts yourself.
We don't know whether evidence existed or not. What we do know, is that investigators weren't allowed to look for it, that requested documents and testimonies weren't provided by the accused or his allies, even after being subpoenaed, that the Republican leadership of the DOJ both hindered the Mueller investigation and then misrepresented its conclusions on TV. We know that the Republican Senate - whose responsibility supposedly is to the law first, and the party second - refused to allow witnesses when investigating whether Trump should be impeached. This is all at least extremely suspicious in itself, if not a straightforward crime.
That the Republican president and leadership dares to claim there was no evidence, after the they themselves refused to provided legally required documents or testimony, is a level of chutzpah that reminds me of the story of the guy who killed his parents then asked for the court's mercy because he's an orphan. That you and other Republican supporters still buy into this absurdity is just sad.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (Score:3)
[referencing 181 of the Mueller report [justice.gov]]:
Close, but not quite. He said that the investigation did not establish that those particular contacts amounted to conspiracy.... "Did not establish" does not mean "did not happen."
So absent any proof or evidence - we will assume the party is guilty. Is that what you're saying?
No.
I am saying that "I have not established X" is not the same as "I have established not-X."
This is logic 101, you should learn it.
In the absence of evidence, no conclusion is reachable.
Re: (Score:3)
So where does the report say there was a conspiracy? Last I checked, the concept is "innocent until proven guilty". Where is the evidence of a conspiracy that would prove guilt? The Mueller report says nothing there to violate laws - not guilty. No conspiracy.
Go ahead, we'll wait - pony up some evidence, please. Maybe Adam Schiff is still holding it for you?
Re:Bias against conservative voices? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you. Many of the things Trump and his people have done were ethically terrible, but none have been proven illegal. Innocent until proven guilty is very important, but is a maxim we too often ignore in this country.
On the other hand: In June 2016, the FBI announced "we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws" and "No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."; similar words, a similar result Mueller. And yet, throughout the rest of the 2016 campaign, and continuing even until just months ago, Trump has presided over chants of "Lock Her Up" at his rallies, and I have not heard his supporters saying "wait, he can't say that without evidence! Clinton is innocent until proven guilty!". So I find it hard to feel too bad for Trump.
As far as I can tell, you are saying "Hey, you know that thing that Trump does all the time, that is awesome and pwns the libs and I never complain about it? Waaah, it's terrible and unfair and unconstitutional when someone else does the exact same thing against him! Also, I don't know what irony is."
That's gotta be a really sucky part about supporting Trump: No matter what annoying things his opponents do, you are pretty much guaranteed that Trump himself has done that same thing (but much more so), usually recently. That would probably be disheartening and embarrassing for anyone with enough native wit to realize this and and honesty to admit it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
If you don't like Twitter and Facebook,may I suggest 4chan?
Proof of racism (Score:3)
Can see why you posted as AC.
Arrests convictions.
Reactivity, zero evidence cited.
Economist link shows non-lethal force applied racially.
Don't see it as a free speech issue... (Score:2, Interesting)
The order is petty and retaliatory. He fails to recognize the difference between threatening populace with military action versus someone expressing concern about Russia. It is another in a long line of concerning executive orders over the past many administrations that legislate from the Oval Office.
However, it is not infringing upon speech. None of what is done is forbidding speech. It opens up the platforms to defamation liability which is highly impractical, but it doesn't outright ban the speech.
Re: Don't see it as a free speech issue... (Score:4, Insightful)
If platforms want to remain platforms then they shouldnâ(TM)t be injecting viewpoints and censoring speech. This is the act of a publisher. Publishers are liable for their content.
Get the difference?
You can still be a platform. Just not with the mannerisms currently in use by someone like twitter.
Re: Don't see it as a free speech issue... (Score:5, Informative)
Also, how you feel about spam? If twitter removes it or marks it as spam - according to your reasoning it's injecting viewpoints and censoring speech.
If a platform can't moderate or add their own comments about content, you'll end up with a cesspool of stuff no normal person would want to deal with.
Btw, a platform allowing it's users to moderate will also be affected if you get what you want - so either say goodbye to commenting on slashdot or be prepared to wade through ALL posts to find the ones that seems interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Within the scope of CDA 230, there is no real distinction between publishers or platforms
This is the problem. We need to establish the difference legally so we can maintain a clear distinction between the two.
Allowing companies to pretend to be a platform while manipulating user content to push their own agenda is deceptive and prevents open public discourse.
Under a revised section 230 we could still allow platforms to have user moderation if we want. They could also be allowed to post as a user without losing the protections.
Re: Don't see it as a free speech issue... (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone is responsible for posting the spam - and that makes it count as speech in some sense.
But how about trolls then, that only make posts saying: spam! spam! spam! spam! spam! ?
Do we infringe their speech by removing said post? Does that count as moderation? Is it editorializing if they add a tag saying "SPAM" on the post?
Re: (Score:3)
The "speech" in "free speech" implies communication. Spam often has the goal of hammering a channel, removing other's ability to communicate with no real message itself. Your rights end where mine begin, so your right to communicate is protected, but your right to hammer a channel and prevent communication is not protected.
So as long as the speech hammering the channel is trying to sell penis pills, it's "free speech"? It's trying to communicate, after all. A wonderful opportunity to enhance the male anatomy. It says so, right in the message. Or how about a loud "conversation" between two people extolling the virtues of the Nazi party? In a cross stitch channel. It looks like communication. It can even look like conversation. While still being absurdly intrusive, even though all cross stitch-related posts will still s
Re: (Score:3)
The executive order clarifies "good faith" to mean the platform must consistently enforce their TOS rules regardless of politics, and must explain clearly why content was taken down or removed.
It's not binding and carries no weight, so it actually clarifies nothing. Especially since there is no requirement that there be terms of service; a site is well within its rights to act in a totally arbitrary fashion. Also to revise its terms of service at will.
You can't have a set of rules you only enforce against conservatives.
That seems reasonable. OTOH you can find all conservative political positions, and speech advocating for them to be offensive, and ban that.
I don't really have a problem with conservatives discussing whether they prefer the old grading system for
Re: Don't see it as a free speech issue... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, the imaginary difference that only exists in your head. 47 USC 230 says:
There is no "either... or," "only if," or anything else linking 47 USC 230(c)(1) and (c)(2). Internet service providers both cannot be treated as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another and get to restrict access to objectionable material.
The guy who wrote the law [twitter.com] says so. So who are you to say otherwise, and with no sources to back up your bullshit even?
Re: (Score:3)
There are lots of arguments from people saying but what if someone posts spam or some
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Reads like a call to violence to me [twitter.com]. The fact that you consider it to be political speech is your problem, not Twitter's. They get to make an independent judgment too.
Re: (Score:2)
The order is petty and retaliatory. He fails to recognize the difference between threatening populace with military action
Yep.
versus someone expressing concern about Russia..
95% of which are either:
1. Racist drivel
2. Cheap fairy tails about the supervillain Vlad which flies around on a jet of nerve gas coming out of his arse and shoots laser beams out of his eyes to kill all traitors to the fatherland.
On top of that quite a few of them are sponsored relaying of "talking points" which have been pre-cooked for repetition by any of our PsyOps divisions.
This does not mean that we should not be concerned or worried about them. We must, but on actual merits of the case and
Ummm... (Score:2, Informative)
In the last few years we've seen Facebook, Twitter, et al being used by foreign entities to push propaganda at us constantly. They've been used by ISIS and other terrorist groups to organize internationally. Now we're seeing domestic terr
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're confused. The one thing I've seen is Twitter labeling Trump's tweet, not hiding it. So they are still hosting it.
Then you hate the unchecked foreign influence, how do you expect that to be fixed? Labeling with a link to see more information, while still hosting it, seems like a more informative approach, and should allow indemnity. Otherwise you just hide it Without explanation, meaning they are choosing content, editorializing.
You got another idea? One that might actually be implemented?
Let
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, section 230 was NEVER about neutrality. It was about internet services having the right moderate their service as they see fit within the law.
Every internet service that hosts some type of UGC is fully within their rights to choose what is al
Re: (Score:2)
Btw, propaganda is countered with facts and education.
Sadly, as this discussion shows, facts such as the actual text of the law are ignored and people who refuse to get educated, don't.
Wish there was a simple solution but I see this argument being made by the same people no matter how hard others try to educate them with the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Section 230 was crafted to protect companies that operated as neutral hosting platforms for user content. By taking a stance on what they believe to be truthful and not truthful they are no longer neutral hosting platforms.
Wrong! It was crafted to encourage sites to remove content that they subjectively found undesirable. The terms used in the law are: "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable"
And since many people find hate speech objectionable even when it is intimately associated with the political right, they can remove it from their sites without any pretense of neutrality, while still enjoying the full and absolute protection of the law.
For example:
I've gone from just moderately not liking these companies to thinking their lack of self regulation means that an outside entity must regulate them.
If I ran this site,
Re: (Score:2)
You're absolutely wrong. 47 USC 230 says:
Re: (Score:2)
the gov can shut social media down completely (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Via reform meaning a unilateral executive order unconstitutionally attempting to rewrite a law passed by congress and enacted by a previous President according to the Constitution?
Or via reform meaning a Democrat-lead house and a Republican-led Senate passing a law enacted by Trump according to the Constitution?
Because if you mean, the latter... BWAHAHAHAHA! OMFG
You can sure for anything (Score:3)
'Conservative voices', is it? (Score:2)
Here you go: https://www.4chan.org/ [4chan.org]
That's about the most neutral hosting platform imaginable. It's a total shithole, a literal sewer, the ass-end of the Internet, an absolute cesspool of the worst that humanity has to offer on the Internet. The only things that are removed from there, really, are things that are flat-out illegal in the United States (since it's hosted in the U.S.) which might get the FBI down on their
Cognitive dissonance (Score:5, Insightful)
President Trump -- by publicly attacking Twitter and issuing the order -- sought to chill future online speech by other speakers,
SO, let me get this straight... By pushing back against companies censoring and banning some speech the companies don't like - that chills the future of online speech?
Fighting against censorship means pushing for more censorship?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cognitive dissonance (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump is literally trying to restrict Twitters free speech with this.
Please explain how saying "stop editorializing and pulling tweets and accounts" means trying to restrict the tweets of others. How is he chilling the rights of others to speak? By taking Twitter to task for banning people? By Twitter using a blue checkmark to indicate an account is authentic and really the account of the claimed individual [twitter.com] and then - for those they do not like - pulling the blue checkmark [cnn.com]? How does a person go from verified to, effectively, a non-person?
I cannot see in any way, shape, or form how pushing for more openness and freedom of speech on a platform will result in less of it. Seriously. We used to celebrate the right to disagree with speech, but fight to guarantee the rights of others to say what their piece. Now, apparently, censoring and banning people you don't like is considered right. That's some seriously fucked up thinking...
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot see in any way, shape, or form how pushing for more openness and freedom of speech on a platform will result in less of it.
They're trying to restrict what Twitter, and other sites, can/cannot do with their own private platform. It has been shown in the past that choosing what is said on a private platform, like Twitter, is part of their free speech. As such, the government is trying to censor Twitter's(and others) speech. Period. I'm not arguing over whether it's right or not. I'm only telling you that it's happening, not how to feel about it. As such, your statement "Fighting against censorship means pushing for more censorshi
Re: (Score:2)
Force Fox News to accept ads that it doesn't like [newsweek.com] and then come back to me with your drivel...
Re: (Score:2)
Fox was wrong. They should have shown the ad. Of course, I am sure you would have been the FIRST to shout about how Fox was showing commercials of Nazis because "that's what Fox is - a Nazi, right-wing echo chamber".
Now, you're supposedly a lawyer, which means you probably understand some logic. So explain please how President Trump asking for more openness of speech on Twitter is actually him demanding less openness of speech on Twitter. Because if you can do that - your next client should look at yo
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you're sure. Otherwise you'd have to concede that I have an intellectually consistent worldview, and you can't consider that anyone who disagrees with you has any such positive quality while maintaining your sense of superiority.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He did that lawyer thing where he made you look stupid and you're too dumb to realize it. Stop embarrassing yourself.
There's a special class on how to do it in law thing school.
Re: (Score:2)
SO, let me get this straight... By pushing back against companies censoring and banning some speech the companies don't like - that chills the future of online speech?
Fighting against censorship means pushing for more censorship?
This isn't a binary choice. The only options available are not simply deciding whether section C2 of 47 USC 230 is good or bad.
When you increase liability for speech in order to save it the end result is rarely the preservation of speech. As they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
People could for example use this opportunity to call for major anti-trust action against social media companies and break them up into bite sized pieces, limit vertical integration..etc. With disaggregation of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What are section 230 consequences? I just ask, because there are no consequences in 47 USC 230.
(Also it says that sites can remove speech "whether or not such material is constitutionally protected" so the law certainly has no problems with banning speech that is not illegal)
Re: (Score:2)
And a month later, your site is flooded with pornography, conspiracy theories, and fringe politics. Then your real customers, the advertising clients, leave.
Rules for thee but not for me (Score:2)
Here's the problem with this: you can't claim that someone is violating your right to free speech when you violate theirs.
We Can't Promote Violence, Waaaaaa! : P (Score:2)
We don't (Score:2)
get free speech rights on ANY social media platform so why should they get any free speech rights?????
I say FUCK 'EM!
Well I didn't mean me, obvs. (Score:2)
as a technology policy organization claimed in a lawsuit that he violated the companies' right to free speech with his executive order aimed at curtailing their legal protections.
Yes, and the Democrats are doing the same thing, as well as other Republicans.
I hope you all remember your position on this as inevitably politicians try to hurt the internet companies by altering 230, to coerce them into censoring the way they want.
I won't hold my breath though. People flip and are ready to wield wrongful power when they're the ones with it.
2025 (Score:2)
Pretty sure Trumpâ(TM)s fixed the election this time around too. Just like how he created this virus to spur tribalism, border closures, and nationalism. Who benefit most from the virus? It was Trump. Only chance democrats have is in 2024 when hopefully they run someone cleaner than Biden or at least someone who can act like heâ(TM)s proud of his dirt.
is it true what they're saying ? (Score:2)
I can't personally vouch for it, but I keep hearing whispers among concerned Republicans. They seem worried, confused and deeply disturbed.
Is it true that Donald Trump has a teeny weenie ?
Re: Wait... what? (Score:2)
Many companies have been getting a free ride and engaging in censorship.
Play stupid games and win stupid prizes.
Itâ(TM)s going to be a shock playing by the rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? They still have the right to speak for themselves or are you saying that the law should limit their own speech entirely removing their rights?
By your logic they would be free to post on other social media platforms but not host anything at all themselves. Think about that for a moment. Twitter as a company would be able to post whatever they want on Facebook, including posts negative to Facebook itself, without any restriction or repercussion but not post anything at all on their own platform.
Re:Wait... what? (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing that you said is true.
The companies don't have a right to free speech because they're not content creators
Wrong! The right of free speech and press includes the right to decide what speech from others to allow or deny on your private property. The right of free association includes the right to arbitrarily allow or permit users to even use your site at all. Only minor exceptions exist, e.g. no discrimination against users based on race.
the entire reason they're not liable for the content they host is because they're ostensibly unbiased and uncensored platforms for the hosting of content ... If they argue that they have a right to free speech in the form of selective censorship then they negate the protections they're currently given and open themselves up to being liable for the content they host.
Wrong again!
The law protects and encourages sites to host speech posted by users and to moderate that speech at will, including in a non-neutral manner. No site is responsible for what its users lost, ever. And no site is liable for anything as a result of good faith moderating, filtering, or removing speech that the site owners or operators subjectively find "offensive." It's probably over your head but anyone else can read the law in question at 47 USC 230 [cornell.edu].
Also it's not censorship, because no one has a right to post on a third party's site anyway.
Dont you get tired of being wrong all the time?
Re: (Score:3)
Also it's not censorship, because no one has a right to post on a third party's site anyway.
Dont you get tired of being wrong all the time?
Not trying to choose a side here, but removing content posted by a 3rd party from a web site you own is MOST CERTAINLY censorship. It is protected/legal censorship, but it is still censorship. You probably need to go back and refresh yourself with the definition of "censorship".
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can. But it means you have to understand the law.
Perhaps I'm wrong and you can supply the relevant legal text?
Re: (Score:2)
Quote where 230 says anything about "platform," much less that you have to choose between one or the other. I'll wait...
Re: (Score:2)
Been reading it for decades. What it actually says is, you can't be treated as a publisher of anyone else's posts no matter what:
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.
47 USC 230(c)(1)
And that you can moderate and remove user posts at will, in good faith, if you find them to be subjectively offensive.
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of--
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected
47 USC 230(c)(2)(A)
But I suspect this is the first time you've ever read it, you ignorant shit. Hell, the word "platform" doesn't even appear in the law.
Re:Wait... what? (Score:4, Informative)
You're absolutely wrong. 47 USC 230 says:
There is no "either... or," "only if," or anything else linking 47 USC 230(c)(1) and (c)(2). Internet service providers both cannot be treated as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another andget to restrict access to objectionable material
The guy who wrote the law says so [twitter.com]. So who are you to say otherwise, and with no sources to boot?
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. This is an old problem but they're finally doing something about it. It's no different than all the other bullshit crimes, it's just "on the internet", so they think the rules don't apply to them.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't both say 'I am not liable for that content because it isn't mine' and 'I decide what content can be posted'. One or the other.
There has to be some wiggle room though or you can't have a forum that focuses on a niche topic. If your bee keeping forum isn't free to remove posts that aren't about bee keeping then everything just gets overrun.
I don't even care if Twitter is biased one way or another. That's their own prerogative and no one has to use them. If we could make effective rules that forced everyone to be fair, we'd live in a completely different world. Ultimately it's impossible to have any real degree of freedom if you a
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is saying you can't have a niche forum, or be biased in any way you want. Of course you can do that, and there is nothing wrong with it. What they are saying is that you can't BOTH be biased, and simultaneously claim you have no control over content.
This isn't new. For instance, newpapers and magazines existed for centuries. They could be as biased or niche as they wanted (freedom of the press and all that). BUT, if they printed a libelous article, they could be sued (even if they didn't write t
Re:Wait... what? (Score:5, Insightful)
So I would say if a platform IS exercising editorial control (as is their right), then they are a publisher and may be sued for their content. But if they are NOT exercising editorial control, then they are like the printer, and are shielded from being sued for the content.
Just a question, do you think it's fair to say that users who break the Terms of Service should lose access to said service? Or perhaps (according to the TOS), get their posts moderated, deleted and/or editorialized?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What they are saying is that you can't BOTH be biased, and simultaneously claim you have no control over content.
Except of course, the law says you totally can do that and that you're encouraged to do so. And it's not that you have to claim you have no control over content, it's that the law deems that you are not responsible for it as if you did.
This isn't new. For instance, newpapers and magazines existed for centuries. They could be as biased or niche as they wanted (freedom of the press and all that). BUT, if they printed a libelous article, they could be sued (even if they didn't write the article, they chose to publish it). After all, THEY were in control of the content. The actual printing shop was different - they just printed what the magazine or newspaper sent. They did not exercise any editorial control. You could not sue the printer for libel, they had no control over it.
Wrong!
Printers were often held liable for libel. You're thinking of bookstores and newsstands.
But remember: newspapers and books publish at their leisure and have time to fact check. Social media allows posting in real time, and lacks the time or wherewithal to fact check, ju
Re: (Score:2)
If we could make effective rules that forced everyone to be fair, we'd live in a completely different world. Ultimately it's impossible to have any real degree of freedom if you also want to have those kind of rules, you're only free to behave however you wish as long as it's in an approved way.
We used to live in that world. The FCC used to mandate a Fairness Doctrine and enforced the Equal Time Rule. News media used to fear to tread into the realm of shilling for one party or the other. The FEC policed illegal campaigning.
Now we have this mess and it's pervasive in broadcast and social media. Citizens United was a terrible decision, if not legally, at least by its consequences. We are at each others' throats and the most vocal are usually the least informed and least correct.
Not what the law says. (Score:5, Informative)
Section 230 [cornell.edu] of the Communication Decency Act, which is what Trump's order is about, not only allows but encourages sites to moderate content that users post, and sites do not become liable for their users' posts by doing so.
What you are advocating would be completely unworkable. Every forum that has ever existed (even 4chan), has found it necessary to have some degree of moderation against spam, trolling, and the like. Every site that hosts user content has found the need to provide some means of curating, organizing, or promoting of select content to enable other users to find what interests them more easily.
Re:Not what the law says. (Score:4, Informative)
(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(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).
Section 230 is not a free pass for censorship. It provides cover for removing objectionable content in good faith. What twitter is censoring is not objectionable content nor is it done in good faith. Censoring and editorializing content for political reasons is not protected by Section 230. If these social media sites want to be protected as a platform they need to limit themselves to policing the kind of content that would fall afoul of FCC decency standards. But if they want to censor people because they don't like their politics, then they should be prepare to be treated like any other publisher.
Re:Not what the law says. (Score:5, Informative)
It provides cover for removing objectionable content in good faith. What twitter is censoring is not objectionable content nor is it done in good faith. Censoring and editorializing content for political reasons is not protected by Section 230.
Hot damn, this is the second one of these shitheads today that's read the law for a change, despite getting it wrong. It's like you're leveling up or something.
Anyway, you're totally wrong though, and thanks for playing.
First, sentence structure is important. I know that people who jack off to Trump's oral diarrhea will have had their ability to lead English atrophied by now (which is ironic given how many of them want it as a national language due to their bigotry) but you need to carefully read 47 USC 230(c)(2)(A).
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of--
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith
The action has to be taken in good faith. So action taken to, say, shake you down for a paid upgrade to a user status that's allowed to read shitposts would not be in good faith.
But as for the objectionable content, that's entirely subjective on the part of the site owner or operator, which still amounts to good faith, but it's not formally required for that part. I know I actually find lots of things right wing people say to be offensive. Since offense is in the eye of the beholder, I'd be free to remove it from a site I controlled. That it's political speech is irrelevant. There is no exception in the law for that. There is no requirement that sites follow (inapplicable) FCC standards. You're just making shit up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Another more relevant example of not taking in good faith is stating you don't fact check political leaders then fact check the only political leader you don't like.
Maybe, but I wouldn't want to put money on it.
So the more Twitter only censors and fact checks Trump or people in a similar group they are not acting in good faith and should lose section 230 protection.
You're backwards I think. I'd say the more they do it the likelier it is it's in good faith.
labeling a tweet such as facet check is not restricting access but editorializing again not covered under section 230.
Never said it was. The point is that it doesn't jeopardize their protection under section 230 anywhere else. If the fact check is defamatory, their liability is only as to that fact check; nothing else.
Nice try and all (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you a fascist? If not then you should back Section 230 for a free internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you a fascist?
No.
If not then you should back Section 230 for a free internet.
I do. And as a result, I do not support the ability of information service providers or other users to remove content that is not actually illegal from their site. Whether it's Trumps blathering or whatever.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nope. That says that the interactive computer service (the entity protected by Section 230) shall not be held liable for making available to content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material. These content providers or others are not the computer service itself. They are third parties who would moderate or edit content previously provided. And Section 230 says nothing about extending this liability protection to those entities.
Wow! One of you shitheads actually read the damn law! I'm impressed, shithead. I tip my hat to you.
The only problem is that like your fellow Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark, you're digging in the wrong place.
You quoted 47 USC 230(c)(2)(B). What you should have quoted was subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2)(A). They say, in totally clear language, that sites aren't held liable as publishers of their users' posts and that the sites themselves, as well as users of the sites, can remove posts in good faith at will i
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously though, you're king of the fascist anti-free speech shithead trolls
I'm anti free speech but you support the right of services to delete content providers posts? Nice doublethink there. Now who's the fascist?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm anti free speech but you support the right of services to delete content providers posts? Nice doublethink there. Now who's the fascist?
Is this a bit? If so I can play along for a moment. Ahem...
Who's a godawful widdle fascist loser that by all rights should be lying face down in a ditch somewhere? Izzit you? Izzit you? Yes it is!
How was that?
Anyway, back to business: the right of free speech has a positive side and a negative side. The names don't refer to value judgments or anything; don't be misled. Positive free speech is the right to speak freely as one wills. Simple enough. Negative free speech is the right to remain silent as one wil
Re: (Score:2)
47 U.S Code 230 Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material, subsection (f)(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.
Re: (Score:2)
Moderating is a separate issue in that it does not modify or delete content posted by the original provider. But it's not blocking or screening. Which, for the purpose of the communications decency act has a narrow scope. It is a big stretch to do politically motivated screening or editing under the guise of screening offensive content.
Re:Not what the law says. (Score:4, Informative)
Nope. [cornell.edu].
You focused on sec. 230(c)(2)(B), but 230(c)(2)(A) applies to "any action taken" by the interactive computer service itself." And the definition of an interactive computer service is merely "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" (section 230(f)(2)).
Better yet, if I contract with a service to provide an over the top information service, then I am an interactive computer service too. My Twitter account is an interactive computer service. Blows your mind, doesn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
"including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet" does not limit the independent clause that precedes it, cupcake.
Learn to English.
"any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server"
Twitter does that.
Re: (Score:3)
No matter how many times he tried again, or how slowly, he's going to come to the same answer that he already has because it's the right answer to begin with. 47 USC 230 says:
Re: (Score:2)
That's it in a nutshell. They can either make NO editorial decisions (other than required by law) and be shielded, or they can make editorial decisions and lose that protection. You can't both say 'I am not liable for that content because it isn't mine' and 'I decide what content can be posted'. One or the other.
Section C2 of 47 USC 230 says the exact opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
I completely agree. If social media companies are deciding which content they want to push to their audience, then they are literally publishers. Youtube is a huge offender of this, blocking or blacklisting videos that mention Covid-19, yet give big media channels a free pass even when it's been shown that they are less than truthful. Big media can show violence and talk about touchy subjects, but smaller channels are blacklisted for it. Can't wait for the reform.
I think those lefitst 'dotters are only tryi
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
as long as you continue to censor based on ideology, you're a publisher, not a platform. Deal with it. Don't like it? Get rid of your SJWs,
"No censorship based on ideology! (outright lies, threats of violence, and hate speech are reasonable conservative rhetoric dontcha know?)"
"Also, please purge those dastardly SJWs from your platform kthxbai"
Re: (Score:2)
The option you describe as "censor evenly" includes "stop silencing people, and be a platform again" so I'm going to chalk that up to a comprehension fail on your part and a hypocrisy fail on his part.
Re:nope, sorry (Score:5, Informative)
The CDA doesn't care whether you're a publisher or a platform. It cares whether you're an "information content provider." If you didn't write it, you're not liable for it, whether you remove objectionable material in good faith or not. Specifically, 47 USC 230 says:
There is no "either... or," "only if," or anything else linking 47 USC 230(c)(1) and (c)(2). Internet service providers both cannot be treated as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another and get to restrict access to objectionable material.
The guy who wrote the law says so [twitter.com].
Don't like it? Deal with it.
But it is [xkcd.com]. It's also freedom of association, which you keep forgetting. Speak whatever you want on your own platform. Private entities, even corporations, don't have to give you their soapbox for your bullshit.
Wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:'Conservative voices', is it? (Score:4, Informative)
More often it is false accusations of "racism, sexism, bigotry, discrimination" being used to silence actually conservative voices.
Conservative simply means cautious about change.
Re: (Score:3)
You are missing something, there are a lot of people out there that are racist, sexist, bigots and discriminating - and many of them do it under the guise of being conservatives (or liberal for that matter)
The problem is that the real conservatives/liberals are drowned out by the loudmouths, because saying things that aren't controversial or aren't pandering to the voters isn't interesting enough to get views or clicks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Tell me again who the "fascist" is?