• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justice Department Proposes Weakening Social Media's Legal Shield

Aunt Antifa

Hunter of my heart
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
8,616
Reaction score
3,341
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
‘They are connected notions. Rights bring, and require, accountability.

So yes, they have a right to censor as they choose, but with it comes responsibility for what appears because ownership has taken an active part in its appearing on thei site. Signing off on and condoning it, as it were.

Choose not to censor and you get to say, ‘Hey, free access site. We don’t censor and we condone none of what appears on our pages”
THere is no law you are referencing with your argument. This is all made up philosophical non-relevance.
 

Athanasius68

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
15,282
Reaction score
2,516
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
They can do that if they want. It’s a private company. Private company doesn’t mean *you*, as a consumer of their service, define for them what they can and cannot place on their site.

And I’ve said this before: if you support this, then prepare yourself for having sites like this go away, and all your fav right wing shithole rabbit holes closing up shop. NO one will want the liability. It’s not worth the headache when some yenta decides to cause trouble because their feelings were hurt over Ben Shapiro being called a midget.

Why are you folks struggling so hard with the free market?
And under the law, as it presently exists, they are not LIABLE for what is posted on their site.

If they are going to judge and evaluate what goes on their sites, which they can certainly do, why should they be exempt from any legal consequences for what they allow on it? Do you really think a private company should be exempt from having to defend in court the consequences of its decisions?
 

Athanasius68

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
15,282
Reaction score
2,516
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"Liable" for what and to whom? A private company can do whatever the hell it wants, within the law. Muzzling the media is both unconstitutional and the province of authoritarian regimes; Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany; you name an authoritarian government and you'll find the government line is all you'll read or see in their media.
Libel and slander are basically the issues they would probably face.
 

Casper

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
24,304
Reaction score
9,723
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Thats like me starting my own newspaper with thousands of reporters and claiming im not responsible for what is being published because there is too many reporters on my staff for me to police them so i only police the ones i dont like.
Wrong, those posting are not their employees. And yes, just like this site they can and do have control over what is acceptable on their site, don't like their rules move on to another site that allows you to post anything you like and God knows there are sites like that out there.
 

Athanasius68

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
15,282
Reaction score
2,516
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Complete BS.... Twitter adds a warning to the content, they do not alter content at all..
They are making a judgement as to content on its site. Why should they be exempt from the possible consequences of bad judgement?
 

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
40,115
Reaction score
12,957
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
when Facebook permits a group to promote violence and has been reported repeatedly to them...they are enabling the situation to happen. In the case of Kenoha...there were more than 400 reports in reference to the Kenosha Guard and Boogaloo Bois planning to shoot protesters and they did not take it down. There is a point when you have endorsed the content you permit on your server. This is how sex trafficking, child porn distributors, and terrorist groups are being allowed to flourish.
I dont agree. There is far too much potential for abuse. When there is some evidence for illegal or harmful activity taking place, they generally police themselves, as they should.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 

ClaraD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
11,053
Reaction score
3,305
Location
Mt Pleasant, South Carolina
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
"Liable" for what and to whom? A private company can do whatever the hell it wants, within the law. Muzzling the media is both unconstitutional and the province of authoritarian regimes; Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany; you name an authoritarian government and you'll find the government line is all you'll read or see in their media.
Muzzeling the media yes, but allowing them to not censor terrorism activities and criminal activities with zero liability is wrong.
 

ClaraD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
11,053
Reaction score
3,305
Location
Mt Pleasant, South Carolina
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I dont agree. There is far too much potential for abuse. When there is some evidence for illegal or harmful activity taking place, they generally police themselves, as they should.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Do they? They allowed the Kenosha guard to continue unchecked even as they were planning to murder protesters.
 

Aunt Antifa

Hunter of my heart
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
8,616
Reaction score
3,341
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
And under the law, as it presently exists, they are not LIABLE for what is posted on their site

If they are going to judge and evaluate what goes on their sites, which they can certainly do, why should they be exempt from any legal consequences for what they allow on it? Do you really think a private company should be exempt from having to defend in court the consequences of its decisions?
They’re not exempt. If it’s found, for instance, that they participated in a crime using the website in some manner, they would be held liable same as any private business owner.

As for what content goes on the site, I’m sorry - you keep framing this as though you and I have a right to tell them how they can run their private business. You’re not asking me questions, you’re telling me to accept your misunderstanding of how teh free market works. If *you* want to change the free market, then *you* can make that argument. But don’t couch it in Twitter’s responsibility. And do understand: you are arguing for less spaces online for citizens to engage and be heard. YOur right wing sites will not be exempt. I know you have told yourself that what they do is legal and good, TWitter is mean.

If Twitter followed your worldview, Trump‘s account gets banned from day one because they do not need the headaches that he will cause. And there is no talkaround that point. If you make it so these sites are now “liable”, they are businesses first and foremost and will unliable themselves with no regard for how much you enjoyed their service that you thought should be controlled by the government.
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
28,372
Reaction score
15,453
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The problem is not what they've allowed. The problem is what they make sure you don't see.
Editing or removal of content for reasons other than "obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good faith." is the problem.
They've turned themselves into, or have been allowed to become, political operations.
That's the problem.
 

ModernDiogenes

Active member
Joined
Apr 18, 2020
Messages
435
Reaction score
136
Location
North East
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
THere is no law you are referencing with your argument. This is all made up philosophical non-relevance.
It’s standard civil case law precedent.

BTW, whether that is to remain the case is evolving SCOTUS judicial review fodder that will be impacted by this new nominee (who ever that will be).
 

BlueTex

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
11,434
Reaction score
5,100
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
They are making a judgement as to content on its site. Why should they be exempt from the possible consequences of bad judgement?

DP makes judgements every day with their obscenity filter... Should they face possible consequences for bad judgement?
 

Aunt Antifa

Hunter of my heart
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
8,616
Reaction score
3,341
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
DP makes judgements every day with their obscenity filter... Should they face possible consequences for bad judgement?
They won’t accept this. They just dont’ care. They want Twitter to stop being mean to racist garbage conservatives. Wait till Breitbart is forced to publish Noam Chomsky or shut down.
 

BlueTex

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
11,434
Reaction score
5,100
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The problem is not what they've allowed. The problem is what they make sure you don't see.
Editing or removal of content for reasons other than "obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good faith." is the problem.
They've turned themselves into, or have been allowed to become, political operations.
That's the problem.
Why is that a problem? Do the owners of sites have a right to allow or not allow their preference of content? Will we require conservative forums to allow posts from socialists?
 

BlueTex

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
11,434
Reaction score
5,100
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
They won’t accept this. They just dont’ care. They want Twitter to stop being mean to racist garbage conservatives. Wait till Breitbart is forced to publish Noam Chomsky or shut down.
LOL... Who cares? The house is not going to pass any bill removing 230 protection...
 

Aunt Antifa

Hunter of my heart
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
8,616
Reaction score
3,341
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
LOL... Who cares? The house is not going to pass any bill removing 230 protection...
Oh, sure. This is all fantasy. This is where they live now. Political fan fic.
 

ClaraD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
11,053
Reaction score
3,305
Location
Mt Pleasant, South Carolina
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Why is that a problem? Do the owners of sites have a right to allow or not allow their preference of content? Will we require conservative forums to allow posts from socialists?
so, if someone creates a site that allows the trafficking and sell of children...should they be censored or not? If say Facebook allows it to continue you do not think they should be liable? I agree that if they did not know said content was there, that no they are not liable...but if they knew, it was reported to them and they just laughed it off and say continue on?
 

ModernDiogenes

Active member
Joined
Apr 18, 2020
Messages
435
Reaction score
136
Location
North East
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Wonderful. HOw is it applicable here?
Umm, let’s see...

The OP commented on DOJ was creating new standards of accountability for user content on public forums.

My reply had directly to do with established standards of accountability for user content on public forums.

You really can’t see the obvious direct connection or are you just trolling?
 

Aunt Antifa

Hunter of my heart
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
8,616
Reaction score
3,341
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Umm, let’s see...

The OP commented on DOJ was creating new standards of accountability for user content on public forums.

My reply had directly to do with established standards of accountability for user content on public forums.

You really can’t see the obvious direct connection or are you just trolling?
If you can’t explain it, I understand. Because it’s a ridiculous reach.

Please spend more words telling me how much *I* don’t understand as you flail though. Breeze is nice.
 

BlueTex

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
11,434
Reaction score
5,100
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
so, if someone creates a site that allows the trafficking and sell of children...should they be censored or not? If say Facebook allows it to continue you do not think they should be liable? I agree that if they did not know said content was there, that no they are not liable...but if they knew, it was reported to them and they just laughed it off and say continue on?
Sigh... There are plenty of federal laws that would apply to a site that allows trafficking and selling of children... Good lord..
 

BlueTex

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
11,434
Reaction score
5,100
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Umm, let’s see...

The OP commented on DOJ was creating new standards of accountability for user content on public forums.

My reply had directly to do with established standards of accountability for user content on public forums.

You really can’t see the obvious direct connection or are you just trolling?
The DOJ is NOT creating new standards of accountability, they have no authority to do so... What they have done is released a wish list for congress.. Nothing the DOJ has suggested has ANY force of law...
 

ClaraD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
11,053
Reaction score
3,305
Location
Mt Pleasant, South Carolina
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Sigh... There are plenty of federal laws that would apply to a site that allows trafficking and selling of children... Good lord..
really? What are those? The 230 clause leaves them not liable for allowing this stuff...its how 8chan has got away with so much.
 

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
40,115
Reaction score
12,957
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Do they? They allowed the Kenosha guard to continue unchecked even as they were planning to murder protesters.
Missing a group who they may not have identified as "threatening" then does not mean they arent doing what they can.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Top Bottom