Consequences for Veterans and/or retirees in the 2021 DC Riots

[SlickAg]

I think they’re being stupid right now. They’re overreaching with some of the latest hits right now (hitting content that literally has nothing to do with stop the steal) and there are enough Democrats who hate Big Tech to go after them as well.

If this spawns an unholy alliance between AOC and Ted Cruz I will laugh my ass off.

Someone on here said that the further to the right (or left) you go on the big circle, you end up right next to the other extremist. I think it's very true.

This thread is just a splendid shit-show.

On the contrary, I think it's one of the better ones we've had in quite some time. Like I said earlier, generally respectful even thought it's pretty political, intellectually stimulating, and generating a good and constructive dialogue.

I believe it's actually exactly what 2021 needs.

 

[Brett327]

Laissez-faire has never really been the bedrock of the American economic system. I also didn't figure you for a The Heritage Foundation type.

Ironic, isn’t it.

 

[SlickAg]

Ironic, isn’t it.

I’d say it’s like rain on your wedding day, but I know how you feel about the institution of marriage. So perhaps it’s like a black fly in your Chardonnay? A Chablis, perhaps? I’m unfamiliar with your wine preferences but I don’t think that would be too much of a stretch...

 

[MIDNJAC]

Hate speech is generally protected under the First Amendment. So as long as it's not illegal, Section 230 removes the liability for tech companies to moderate that content. This is the key phrase: "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." As long as they are not the publisher or the speaker, they are essentially immune from liability. When they start selectively censoring or suppressing speech, other than what is illegal, violent, obscene, etc, they became a "publisher" because they're editing and moderating content.

President Trump went after Big Tech companies and Section 230 with an Executive Order. Bill Barr held a summit about Section 230 reform. Republican lawmakers have been proposing amendments and changes to it. If the Republicans had gained power, I think there would have been some pretty sweeping changes.

Here is the part about that effort that I don't really understand. And I am actually just asking here, since it sounds like some of you all have paid much more attention than I have. Wouldn't restructuring or simply throwing out Sec. 230 make the predicament worse? I get that it could have the effect of forcing equal censorship through fear of lawsuit, but couldn't it also drastically open the door for much more censorship for that reason as well? Or am I missing something?

 

[Brett327]

I’d say it’s like rain on your wedding day, but I know how you feel about the institution of marriage. So perhaps it’s like a black fly in your Chardonnay? A Chablis, perhaps? I’m unfamiliar with your wine preferences but I don’t think that would be too much of a stretch...

I drink mostly reds, but I wouldn’t invite a fly to share my beverage, regardless of the varietal. Not sure whether that would present sufficient contrast to consummate the irony. ?

 

[Sam I am]

Sounds like any active troops involved in the riots are being charged with investigated for terrorism.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/least-25-troops-under-investigation-002410441.html

 

[IKE]

I know that Clay Travis isn't everyone's cup of tea, but he calls himself a First Amendment absolutist. I think this piece of his does a good job of lining up the arguments about why censorship like we've seen, such as Amazon, Apple, and Google, essentially eliminating Parler is such an unprecedented and scary thing in America. He also comments about the importance of embracing diversity of thought and ideas.

Why Big Tech Bannings Are Bad For America's Marketplace of Ideas

Long time readers of OutKick know that above everything else, I am a First Amendment absolutist. I believe the First Amendment is our most sacred right,

www.outkick.com

I mean, words have meanings. Obviously, I oppose essentially all forms of censorship. The issue here is selective enforcement. And the perceived silencing of the conservative voice.

You've said words have meanings twice now in this thread. I couldn't agree more. So let's be clear -- censorship is a government action. It is regulation of expression. Like Brett said it's abso-f***ing-lutely amazing that the more right-leaning of you are calling private business actions censorship.

Utterly baffling.

Twitter isn't a natural resource or public throughfare, even if you believe such thoroughfares do or should exist.

 

[Brett327]

Here is the part about that effort that I don't really understand. And I am actually just asking here, since it sounds like some of you all have paid much more attention than I have. Wouldn't restructuring or simply throwing out Sec. 230 make the predicament worse? I get that it could have the effect of forcing equal censorship through fear of lawsuit, but couldn't it also drastically open the door for much more censorship for that reason as well? Or am I missing something?

You’re absolutely right. People who want to understand what §230 means should listen to an attorney explain how it works instead of a politician.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Sounds like any active troops involved in the riots are being charged with investigated for terrorism.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/least-25-troops-under-investigation-002410441.html

Perfect example of broadening the definition of a term until it’s meaningless.

 

[BigRed389]

Here is the part about that effort that I don't really understand. And I am actually just asking here, since it sounds like some of you all have paid much more attention than I have. Wouldn't restructuring or simply throwing out Sec. 230 make the predicament worse? I get that it could have the effect of forcing equal censorship through fear of lawsuit, but couldn't it also drastically open the door for much more censorship for that reason as well? Or am I missing something?

Yeah throwing it out makes no sense to me which is why it makes no sense when Trump says repeal it. If it was repealed they would go even heavier handed on censorship so they don’t get sued.
What I sort of got to from thinking about it was to reform it to specifically prohibit political censorship. And maybe define what is permissible in interacting with official government accounts (eg can’t censor the government POTUS account).

Section 230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action.

It already provides a means for them to moderate for various things including things anybody would consider widely objectionable (death threats, for example).
Seems like you could claim (and then make explicit) that censoring political speech would not be acting in good faith. I’m not onboard with opening hate speech or death threats up. I’m sure there will stil be Grey areas on when political spills over into “harassing” but that’s where it should go to courts to set precedent.

You’re absolutely right. People who want to understand what §230 means should listen to an attorney explain how it works instead of a politician.

A lot of them ARE attorneys. Maybe they forget the law when they go into politics.

 

[SlickAg]

You've said words have meanings twice now in this thread. I couldn't agree more. So let's be clear -- censorship is a government action. It is regulation of expression. Like Brett said it's abso-f***ing-lutely amazing that the more right-leaning of you are calling private business actions censorship.

Utterly baffling.

Twitter isn't a natural resource or public throughfare, even if you believe such thoroughfares do or should exist.

What is utterly baffling is your (lack of) understanding of the word, and perhaps concept of, censorship. Let's allow the ACLU to weigh in here:

"Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional."

What Is Censorship? | American Civil Liberties Union

Here is wikipedia's take:

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient."[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions, and other controlling bodies."

Censorship - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, no, censorship is NOT just a government action. In the United States, the First Amendment protects us from government censorship in most cases.

It's abso-f***ing-lutely amazing to me that someone whose username potentially stands for "I Know Everything" does not understand the definition of censorship.

 

[Brett327]

A lot of them ARE attorneys.

The point being, someone who’s not working an angle. ?

 

[SlickAg]

I drink mostly reds, but I wouldn’t invite a fly to share my beverage, regardless of the varietal. Not sure whether that would present sufficient contrast to consummate the irony. ?

I mean, Cabernet would have rhymed too...just sayin'

The point being, someone who’s not working an angle. ?

Show me a lawyer who's not working an angle and I'll show you a lawyer who isn't billing enough hours.

 

[SlickAg]

Apropos of nothing whatsoever...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1348718045049610241

 

[Brett327]

I mean, Cabernet would have rhymed too...just sayin'


Show me a lawyer who's not working an angle and I'll show you a lawyer who isn't billing enough hours.

Yeah, many of the ones quietly teaching the law meet both of those criteria.