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.
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.
Ok, good, now where do you see "censorship" in there?
Where do you see the phrase "Neutral public forum" ?
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?
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.
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
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.
(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
They make it very explicit that Facebook, etc. can remove any content Facebook finds "objectionable", regardless of whether or not it is constitutionally protected.
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.
I see a lot of Putin’s communist ways have rubbed off on his “best friend” Trump.
Ironically, the CDA does the exact opposite of what Ted Cruz is claiming. It gives content providers tremendous leeway to remove content 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 "objectionable" content, regardless of whether or not it is constitutionally protected.
Kinda my read as well.
Of course, Ted Cruz is the sort of slimeball who can't be accused of lying, because it's pretty obvious he has no grasp of the concept of truth. Granted, I'd hire him as my lawyer - I have no doubt he'd do and say anything with a straight face as long as the check cleared.
I'm the messenger and you argue with me? OK, I can waste your time.
Why not argue with the law instead of being anecdotal.
We could try listing the facts, instead.
Which facts exactly?
Here's the facts I'm going on -
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.
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.
Are you seriously challenging the omnipotent legal mind of TED CRUZ?
I'm surprised you haven't turned into a pillar of salt already.
Are you seriously challenging the omnipotent legal mind of TED CRUZ?
I'm surprised you haven't turned into a pillar of salt already.
Nope. Still flesh and blood.
Cruz and I have an agreement. We promise to never intentionally meet each other and to dislike each other on sight if by chance we do happen to run into each other.
So when a hard drive rack on a server farm gets corrupted in a few years and they lose a block of content, that would be illegal? They own the hard drives, I'm not sure how you are going to tell them what they can and can't store on said hard drives. If that's the case, they never really own them. If I'm running a private site I can't ban or censor trolls?
Aside from scale, what exactly is the difference between me banning people I consider trolls on my small personally run website and YouTube doing it on their privately owned website?
Try answering that question without confusing market penetration with monopoly.
Trump warns Social Media Giants to cut out with the censoring, or else!
IOW, spoiled little brat upset the world doesn't dedicate itself to pleasing him.
It is just his way of making a statement. He knows he can't and won't do anything. Yes, it is immature, but as long as he is getting things done, so be it.
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.
