• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

Trump threatens to veto major defense bill unless Congress repeals Section 230, a legal shield for tech giants

Yes-- they believe the information is false. They are making that claim when they delete it or make an editorial comment about it.
Which means information they are allowing to be posted, or posted without any sort of comment, they must believe its 'true.'
Not really, any more than you or I if we don't respond to a comment anywhere on DP, therefore, agree with that comment, endorse its conclusions, because we sometimes post when we disagree.

So what happens when they believe its 'true' is something that somebody else believes is slanderous, defamatory ect etc and so on against him or her?
Well, if its in the NY TIMES or the local newspaper, or a journal of opinion, the law allows that person to sue that publication for damages. Doesn't mean the person would win, or that it would be easy road to travel. Just that the person legally can go to a court and make an argument.
You started with a false premise - that to leave something up is to endorse it. For Twitter, they'd have to read and hit "approve" a billion or so times a day. They can't and do not do that. I'm sure well over 99.9% of posts never get read by anyone at FB.

And the NYT is not liable for third party content in their comments sections, but only in the main 'news' areas where every story is affirmatively approved, or written by them. NYT is responsible for content they create or publish on their website, not for what others upload in the comments sections.

But Sec 230 does not allow that aggrieved person to make an argument in court. Because the theory of the law is that such websites are bulletin board where people are throwing out ideas and the owners.
But if the owners are now going to make a judgement as to the content of their posts received, well then they should not immune from making a bad judgement.
I don't agree at all that moderating a website means, e.g., that a Holocaust Museum website has to tolerate neo-Nazis as long as they are polite, or else risk getting sued with no protections.
 
And when they are deleting some posts but not others, throwing out editorial comments but not others, they are making the claim.
They are not.

When you read a thread, if we assume that because you're active on the thread, that you see a post and ignore it, we cannot conclude that you, THEREFORE, agree, because you read it and didn't comment. There's a good chance you didn't bother reading it, or maybe you just weren't in the mood to respond to that person's bullshit. We conclude you agree when YOU say that in a post.
 
I conflicted on this.. On 1 hand I can see that what Twitter and FB(BTW I am objective on these 2 because I am not now, or ever have belong to either) are not and should not be libel for what people post on them. And if they what to control some of the lies and propaganda they should be allowed to because they are private companies and that in no way are they violating freedom of speech.. Funny how often Cons get the freedom of speech thing wrong...

Anyway on the other hand if they, and other press outlets and platforms are held libel I can see Fox news being sued out of business within 2 years.. And that is all good..
 
BTW I wonder if Trump gets what he wants on this and Twitter and FB are sued that when they are in court they will use the Fox news defending Carlson agreement.. That nothing written on their sites should be believed.. ...lol

And Fox has the word NEWS right in their name, and they said, IN COURT, that nothing 1 of the people on their NEWS outlet should be believed.. It worked for Fox, why would it word for Twitter and FB?
 
Probably.
However, the legal option is available.
Not so under 230.

The "legal option" is always available.

You CAN file a lawsuit against a "platform" based on the third party created content of the "platform" and you CAN file a paternity suit claiming that Ivanka Trump is the father of your child. Both have an equal chance of getting tossed out of court on first appearance (one because of Section 230 and one because of biological impossibility).

Can you guess which is which?
 
Yes-- they believe the information is false. They are making that claim when they delete it or make an editorial comment about it.
Which means information they are allowing to be posted, or posted without any sort of comment, they must believe its 'true.'

Nope, it merely means that they believe it is NOT "verifiably false".

So what happens when they believe its 'true' is something that somebody else believes is slanderous, defamatory ect etc and so on against him or her?

Well, if its in the NY TIMES or the local newspaper, or a journal of opinion, the law allows that person to sue that publication for damages.

Yep, and "the law allows" me to sue Ivanka Trump for child support on the basis that she is the father of my child.

Doesn't mean the person would win, or that it would be easy road to travel.

Especially if the material complained of were NOT material CREATED BY the "platform" and/or "adopted" by it.

Just that the person legally can go to a court and make an argument.

Yep, and the first argument that they have to make is in opposition to a motion for a summary dismissal, which, unless the material complained about is content that the "platform" itself created they will lose.

But Sec 230 does not allow that aggrieved person to make an argument in court.

Sure it does. It just means that the argument will be summarily dismissed.

Because the theory of the law is that such websites are bulletin board where people are throwing out ideas and the owners.

NOVEMBER SIERRA SIERRA

(I presume that you actually intended to add something after "the owners" such as "are not responsible for third party created content".)

But if the owners are now going to make a judgement as to the content of their posts received, well then they should not immune from making a bad judgement.

When you use someone else's "platform" you do so after agreeing to certain "Terms of Use". If you violate those "Terms of Use" then the person who owns the "platform" has the right to refuse to allow you to use their platform with respect to the offending material.

In effect what you are saying is "I did something that I agreed that I would not do and now I want damages because they did what I agreed that they could do if I did something that I agreed that I would not do.".

The legal term for that is an "Argumentum ingentis et stulta, secundum insipientiam".
 
Cable news cannot say 'Blue Tex is a ________ (fill in the blank)" and not be liable if they lack facts to substantiate the allegation.

But they can say "It is our opinion that 'Blue Tex' is a _[fill in the blank_." without being liable.

One is an "assertion of fact" and one is an "opinion". Do you know which is which?
 
We seem to have gotten of track a bit here.

Now that BOTH the House and Senate have passed the bill that Mr. Trump has said he would veto if it did NOT contain a clause eliminating Section 230 AND did so WITHOUT including a clause eliminating Section 230,

do you think that Mr. Trump has the cojones to carry through on his statement that he will veto the legislation?
 
You want to know why McConnell is holding up Covid relief? It's because democrats don't want his granting companies, institutions and organizations immunity for gross negligence causing the spread of covid if they to fail to provide working conditions that match CDC guidelines.

Moreover, McConnell doesn't want a cash grant ($1200, like they did last time) but dems do.

Now what was that about dems not looking out for the little guy?

Yes, we all know about Pelosi's Christmas-in-July pork-laden wishlist that she hasn't budged on in months. If she cared about the little guy, she wouldn't be screwing them over by refusing them ANYTHING. Boy, did she get angry when even the lefties started calling her out on it.

 
First, you are the one who claimed that there were other things people were complaining about Section 230 when it comes to it applying to what is being posted. The only things

As for the adoption thing, if it is a platform, then there is no way that is the only way to adopt. Adoption goes through legal processes, not a discussion platform. There is no way the state or lawyers or adoption agencies could legally do their business, allow adoption only done through this discussion platform. That is what would not happen. The processes for adoption would have to be available outside the platform itself.

This is not that hard to grasp. You are making up an imaginary scenario that legally could not happen and then trying to compare it to what is happening today.
Your refusal to answer was expected. Of course, I knew what the answer was before I proposed the scenario.
 
Last edited:
The ones complaining about Section 230, trying to remove the protection, is not the little guy. It is Trump and his followers, conservatives upset that their conspiracy theories and lies and misinformation is being stopped or countered on private platform sites.
This is just you demonstrating once again that you have little understanding of how the law works and who has been challenging it and why. No, it's not just Trump. :rolleyes:
 
The problem with this issue - in my view - is that large tech companies have a platform in which they can present quasi-factual, cherry picked or slanted views and present them as fact ie the news, and have but very small voices to counter their propaganda. Worse, they can quash those small voices on their giant networks, with the "claim" that these voices represent something incompatible with free speech. In fact, they've done it. Now, we all know that giant tech companies are being hammered for monopolistic policies, and rightfully so. They have systematically destroyed competition. We also know that they've been exposed - particularly in Europe - as voyeurs, so to speak, peering into peoples' private lives, storing their data and profiling them - supposedly for advertising - but there may be a more nefarious motive. Information is after all, power. So, it is clear to me that tech giants should have no specialized legal protection, just for openers. With regard to the assumption that Democrats prefer the limitation of free speech on these sites by supporting efforts to slant the news and influence public opinion, it's probably true. The Democrats were more obsequious and aligned with giant tech's mores. But it's important to note that should the leading Democrats fall out of favor with these large tech companies, primarily by balking at their oligarchic partnership, the same companies can turn on THEM, and then, the true extent of of tech's manipulative power will not only be obvious but become a liability instead of its current asset. Thanks!!
Yes, exactly. The law wasn't written with giant corporate monopolies in mind, controlling everything. By granting them a perpetual "get out of jail free" card, these giants have been lent a great responsibility. If they're not able to operate in "good faith" like the law demands, then they quite simply can't handle the responsibility.
 
If you understood Sec. 230 even a little bit, you would grasp that it offers the most benefits to "the little guy."

FB and the behemoths don't worry about civil liability - they have $billions and an army of the best lawyers on the planet to protect them, when you sign up with TOS, and after to defend them in court. If you sue them, expect to be buried under an avalanche of documents, etc. If they want, they can stretch a lawsuit out for years with appeals, etc. That's not the case for a small niche website like this that runs on a shoestring. I don't know the financial situation of the DP owners, but my guess is a $100k legal bill would be a burden. FB makes that amount likely every minute of every day....
Oh, please. Yes, they have billions to spend and billions to lose. What would anyone get out of suing a site like this?
 
Oh, please. Yes, they have billions to spend and billions to lose. What would anyone get out of suing a site like this?
My guess is they'd want money.

Do you think being small is a shield against lawsuits, because I worked for a law firm for years and I can tell you that is not the case.
 
This is just you demonstrating once again that you have little understanding of how the law works and who has been challenging it and why. No, it's not just Trump. :rolleyes:

Quite right, it is

  1. Mr. Trump;
  2. Mr. Trump's sycophants;
  3. people who owe their jobs to Mr. Trump;
  4. Mr. Trump's supporters;
  5. people who are afraid that if they don't kiss up to Mr. Trump he will do them a nasty;
  6. people being paid by Mr. Trump;
  7. people being paid by people who owe their jobs to Mr. Trump;
  8. people being paid by Mr. Trump's supporters;
  9. people being paid by people who are afraid that if they don't kiss up to Mr. Trump he will do them a nasty;
  10. stupid lawyers;
  11. opportunistic lawyers;
  12. incompetent lawyers;
  13. dishonest lawyers;
    and
  14. unethical lawyers;

to name but a few.
 
The thinking is that if the owners, who claim the legal protection, wish to take responsibility for content posted upon their sites they should not have the legal protection from "deliberate falsehoods, hatred and incitements" they presently have.
Its perfectly reasonable, if regrettable the course of action is needed.
I love watching small government conservatives throw away all notions that they were.
Because in the end it was always a lie.
 
I love watching small government conservatives throw away all notions that they were.
Because in the end it was always a lie.

The motto of those "Small Government Conservatives" is

ALL GOVERNMENT REGULATION IS BAD!
(unless it is a regulation that forces you do do what I want you to do)
 
Which is all the left's argument boils down to. No real reasons other than the fact that they like to stifle the speech of their political opponents and don't think tbey can do anything about it.

The left's position on free speech becomes more and more like China's each day.
What part of private company don't you grasp?
I'm glad you added the China part. That was equally as stupid.
 
Section 230 is a vital part of the internet, it protects ISPs, YouTube, Facebook, and thousands of content providing hosting sites against liability of the content provided by their contributing members.

There is no way in hell Trump is going to get away with this. 230 isn't about shielding media sites on how they police their sites, it protects them from liability of content from subscribers to their platforms. At least that is my understanding of it when I was investigating FOSTA. a few years back.

See, if you get rid of 230, it will white wash the internet, they'll stop allowing any one or biz who has a modicum of controversy. There are 1st amendment issues here, I suspect.

this is what happened to Craiglist, because FOSTA was an end run around 230, as it applies to 'personal ads' (where a few sex traffickers trafficked) What did CL do? instead of more closely monitor personal ads, the objective of FOSTA, CL just killed the section altogether, so the millions of innocent posters are denied access because of it.

Something similar will happen, but on a much grander scale, of 230 is repealed.


President Trump on Tuesday threatened to veto an annual defense bill authorizing nearly $1 trillion in military spending unless Congress opens the door for Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites to be held legally liable for the way they police their platforms.
Too bad that YouTube, Facebook and Twitter have been engaging in politically biased censorship and editorial decisions which isn't part of a 'platform's role.
Had they not, they'd have no worries.
 
So you are pointing out that they claim to be platforms, yet behave like publishers in censoring political opinions they don't like.

Having engaged in editorial decisions as to what they will allow people to post, those are acts of publishing, not acts of being a 'platform'.

The social media companies have, through their own actions, invalidated their 'platform' status, and so should not be afforded the protections of platforms in Section 230.

I really don't understand the left's inability to grasp these rather simple concepts.
 
Yes, we all know about Pelosi's Christmas-in-July pork-laden wishlist that she hasn't budged on in months. If she cared about the little guy, she wouldn't be screwing them over by refusing them ANYTHING. Boy, did she get angry when even the lefties started calling her out on it.

So much for the self acclaimed 'Master Legislator'.

If the Democrats knew what was good for them they'd not wait until she agreed to step down, they'd do it now.
 
Yes, exactly. The law wasn't written with giant corporate monopolies in mind, controlling everything. By granting them a perpetual "get out of jail free" card, these giants have been lent a great responsibility. If they're not able to operate in "good faith" like the law demands, then they quite simply can't handle the responsibility.
With the already well demonstrated and well documented political bias, their censorship and editorial actions they've already taken, clearly not a 'platform', but more so a publisher.

Big tech acting is 'good faith'? Since when?
 
Some of you people do not know what the definition of free speech is. Or are you simply playing stupid for political purposes?
You is stopping your freedom of speech?
 
Drinks are on me when ANY Conservative on this site gets what 'free of speech' in this country really is, AND get the meanings of socialist and communist right..

I'm hoping and praying these people really aren't this stupid and are really trolling, or some of them are being paid by someone, anyone to troll and start trouble..

Because IMO that would be better than these people being this thick, and ignorant to be told over and over and over again what 'freedom of speech' is/means and what socialism is, but they never get it right....
 
I love watching small government conservatives throw away all notions that they were.
Because in the end it was always a lie.

I enjoy watching liberals throw away all notions they are really for the 'little guy.'
 
Back
Top Bottom