Twitter should cancel trumps account and that of anyone in his family or cabinet, conflict of interests. Facebook should do the same.Can't find this on youtube. If someone can find it on there, please post it. Pardon the very biased header.
Short version: Their liability protections are now gone. Let the lawsuits begin.
This is one of the very few things I agree with DT on.
IF YOU DONT TRUST TRUMP. ,WATCH THIS !
IF YOU DONT TRUST TRUMP. ,WATCH THIS ! TRUMP NUMBER ONE ! :) best guy america has ever had hes on social media every day, and he wants it free for the people to use no tech companies banning itwww.bitchute.com
Can't find this on youtube. If someone can find it on there, please post it. Pardon the very biased header.
Short version: Their liability protections are now gone. Let the lawsuits begin.
This is one of the very few things I agree with DT on.
Edit: Removed original link.
If this isn't the grand mal seizure of unintended consequences, it'll do till the grand mal gets here.
Don't anyone think that a privately operated political discussion forum is safe from something like this, because they won't be.
I understand that a forum does not play any kind of a role that is played by FB or YT or what not.
Thing I'm getting at is, there are consequences which will ricochet and draw forums in.
And nothing draws in the s**tstorm quite as well as a vaguely worded and poorly crafted and overly excessive EO penned by a vindictive despot whose favorite chapter in their own book is titled "Revenge".
Loose the Kraken on this at your own risk.
View attachment 67300209
hey, it'll get some play on Hannity (and Hannity will lie about it).LMAO... Did you actually READ the executive order?
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship | The White House
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Pwww.whitehouse.gov
I'll sum it up.... I want the FCC to look for some way they are relevant in determining who gets section 230 protections... Conclusion, they are not...
Just read it... thanks! Apparently I am way behind the boat on this one...LMAO... Did you actually READ the executive order?
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship | The White House
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Pwww.whitehouse.gov
I'll sum it up.... I want the FCC to look for some way they are relevant in determining who gets section 230 protections... Conclusion, they are not...
That was from May.Found it:
No, there are over TWO decades of law backing the interpretation of the law. The way the protections are written, they are a defense that is raised by the person being sued with the court. The FCC is not involved at all.Just read it... thanks! Apparently I am way behind the boat on this one...
Anyway, would this not strip "publishers" of 230 liability protections if they claim equality but do not hold up to their own standards?
Therefore an average person could sue them.
can we sue this board?Just read it... thanks! Apparently I am way behind the boat on this one...
Anyway, would this not strip "publishers" of 230 liability protections if they claim equality but do not hold up to their own standards?
Therefore an average person could sue them.
Don't think he can unilaterally do that, but we'll see what's going on if more comes out. Absolutely nothing on YouTube.
can we sue this board?
As far as I know, as of this writing:
The Federal Communications Commission has absolutely zero jurisdiction over FB, Twitter, YouTube or any other internet platform because the FCC's primary jurisdiction over subscriber based services (which is what the internet is) centers around technical specifications and performance criteria with regard to the way system infrastructure and its operators handle the flow of raw data.
Much of the rest of FCC's jurisdiction is centered around over the air broadcast and telecommunications.
For over the air commercial broadcasting, the FCC controls the licensing of transmitters and license status is dependent upon FCC rules regarding content which may run afoul of community standards for obscenity, or promotion of illegal activities.
These rules govern what is known as "the public airwaves".
For cable and satellite systems, the FCC's jurisdiction primarily centers again around technical and performance criteria, because again, cable and satellite are not public airwaves, they are private subscriber services.
Which part do you approve of?Can't find this on youtube. If someone can find it on there, please post it. Pardon the very biased header.
Short version: Their liability protections are now gone. Let the lawsuits begin.
This is one of the very few things I agree with DT on.
Edit: Removed original link.
Here is another look at the same topic from one of my favorite youtubers(check out his videos looking at legal movies, some are hilarious):Found it:
I like LegalEagle!Here is another look at the same topic from one of my favorite youtubers(check out his videos looking at legal movies, some are hilarious):
I like the fact that liability protections are removed for folks that do not hold up to their own policies.Which part do you approve of?
1: The president using the power of office to attempt to punish those he is feuding with?
2: The big government attempt to control content on private websites?
3: Increased governmental regulation?
Just curious...
Which is highly debatable to be the case here. Maybe if Trump had not cried wolf so many times, he might have just a touch of credibility.I like the fact that liability protections are removed for folks that do not hold up to their own policies.
The shit will hit the fan on this one... looking forward to it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?