Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While BentBow is gleefully celebrating government interference in the free exchange of ideas, can someone explain in non-wingnut terms how the CDA can force private entities to carry content they'd rather not be associated with?
Of coarse he is. You have an individual right to censor me as a private citizen.
Not as a corporation, providing a service based upon non-discriminatory criteria and not violating the companies TOS.
Section 230 of the CDA is clear. The market place on the internet could be used as a weapon and congress agreed.
He has repeatedly stated his twitter feed is official communications from the president. Thus not a private citizen. That why he cant censor people with it.
Private companies can do whatever they want.
Its interesting watching Trump supporters try and turn us into a authoritarian regime.
Seems people are getting ready to actually do something about being silenced.
While President Trump has weighed in on breaking up monopolies like the one currently being built by tech giant Amazon, Parscale’s tweet is one of the administration’s first indications that social media networks are also being monitored.
The **** has officially hit the fan.
In other words the people must have the right to be exposed to fake news, so they can fall for it hook, line and sinker, if they wish. After all, so many people live to be lied to, especially if it agrees with their political agenda.
He has repeatedly stated his twitter feed is official communications from the president. Thus not a private citizen. That why he cant censor people with it.
Private companies can do whatever they want.
Its interesting watching Trump supporters try and turn us into a authoritarian regime.
It's not interesting--it's frightening and dangerous. The cult is slavishly worshiping an ignorant, immature 71 year old man, whose role models are Putin, Duterte and Hitler. Yes, Hitler--and before Godwin's law is invoked in order to neutralize it, Ivana Trump has stated that Mein Kampf was the only book kept on Trump's nightstand for reading (parts I'm sure--he hasn't got the focus to read an entire book).
He desperately wants to be a dictator--he was green with envy over the Chinese president self-appointment for life and he loves autocrats, because he is one.
The only hope we have is that just as everyone in his campaign claims they were all too incompetent to 'collude', Trump is too incompetent to accomplish his totalitarian dreams.
While BentBow is gleefully celebrating government interference in the free exchange of ideas, can someone explain in non-wingnut terms how the CDA can force private entities to carry content they'd rather not be associated with?
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
47 U.S.C. *230. Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by others:
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.
A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity:
The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service."
The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must treat the defendant as the "publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue.
The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue.
Ironically, the CDA does the exact opposite of what Ted Cruz is claiming. It gives social media sites tremendous leeway to remove content that they find, not just illegal, but "objectionable."
So the CDA says Facebook, etc can devise any method they want of censorship. It encourages it.
They make it very explicit that Facebook, etc. can remove any content Facebook finds "objectionable", regardless of whether or not it is constitutionally protected.
When you claim immunity, you go by FCC censorship requirements for offensive material. Not some make it up as you go. If you censor you have no immunity, and the FCC doesn't apply. Your content providers and viewers can sue you for it. Libel, character attacks, you get sued, without that immunity the FCC rules provide.
FB, Twitter, etc are private businesses. In order to use their platform, you must agree to a TOS. This includes definitions and procedures for FB, Twit, etc to remove posts and/or users they find objectionable.
On what basis do you contend that these private businesses cannot legally do that?
We're not arguing the Constitution here. We are arguing law. And I simply don't know of any law that regulates what FB, Twit, etc may or may not do in this regard.
Now of course the law allows for new legal concepts to address new legal issues, and even sometimes allows for a radical rereading of existing law. But as I read Cruz's statements, it seems to me his threats are based on the idea that FB, Twit, etc are breaking existing law. And I don't see how that's a credible threat.
BTW, I find it odd to be arguing about the rights of individual businesses with a conservative, but oh well.
When you claim immunity, you go by FCC censorship requirements for offensive material. Not some make it up as you go. If you censor you have no immunity, and the FCC doesn't apply. Your content providers and viewers can sue you for it. Libel, character attacks, you get sued, without that immunity the FCC rules provide.
First , FCC Censorship requirements are for broadcast TV and radio, and do not apply to the internet.
Second, FCC Censorship requirements are for obscenity and not political content (Otherwise Fox / MSNBC would've been shut down ages ago)
Third, that argument is totally different from Ted Cruz's argument, which is based on the CDA.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
