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.
Cruz based his whole point on the premise that 47 USC 230 requires that the internet platform be a "neutral public forum" but that is not true.
You posted the entire text of the law. Maybe you can point out to where in the text it says anything about a requirement that an internet content provider acts as a "neutral public forum" to avail itself of the protections of 230.
Precedence has already been set by courts. Facebook argued it was a Publisher in this case.
The suit, filed by an app startup, alleges that Mark Zuckerberg developed a “malicious and fraudulent scheme” to exploit users’ personal data and force rival companies out of business. Facebook, meanwhile, is arguing that its decisions about “what not to publish” should be protected because it is a “publisher”.
In court, Sonal Mehta, a lawyer for Facebook, even drew comparison with traditional media: “The publisher discretion is a free speech right irrespective of what technological means is used. A newspaper has a publisher function whether they are doing it on their website, in a printed copy or through the news alerts.”
“For years, Facebook has been saying publicly that it’s not a media company. This is a complete 180.”
Facebook has also cited Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, US legislation that paved the way for the modern internet by asserting that platforms cannot be liable for content users post on their sites. In court filings, Facebook quoted the law saying providers of a “computer service” should not be “treated as the publisher” of information from others.
Quote:
“On one hand, you’re trying to argue you’re this publisher making editorial judgments. But then they turn around and claim they are protected under [Section 230] because they are not publishers.”
Precedence has already been set by courts. Facebook argued it was a Publisher in this case.
The suit, filed by an app startup, alleges that Mark Zuckerberg developed a “malicious and fraudulent scheme” to exploit users’ personal data and force rival companies out of business. Facebook, meanwhile, is arguing that its decisions about “what not to publish” should be protected because it is a “publisher”.
In court, Sonal Mehta, a lawyer for Facebook, even drew comparison with traditional media: “The publisher discretion is a free speech right irrespective of what technological means is used. A newspaper has a publisher function whether they are doing it on their website, in a printed copy or through the news alerts.”
“For years, Facebook has been saying publicly that it’s not a media company. This is a complete 180.”
Facebook has also cited Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, US legislation that paved the way for the modern internet by asserting that platforms cannot be liable for content users post on their sites. In court filings, Facebook quoted the law saying providers of a “computer service” should not be “treated as the publisher” of information from others.
“It just strikes me as fundamentally problematic,” said Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota. “On one hand, you’re trying to argue you’re this publisher making editorial judgments. But then they turn around and claim they are protected under [Section 230] because they are not publishers.”
This has nothing to do with the discussion of Alex Jones nor does it lend any support to your argument about 230 requiring YouTube to post Alex Jones nonsense. I am still waiting for you to point out where 230 states that it only applies to "neutral public forums."
They call Jones a conspiracy theorist and then conspire to kill him from the digital town square.
You cannot make this stuff up. It's happened.
Yes they colluded together. The evidence is right there, without doubt. If you think differently, you are a very dishonest person.
Or, possibly, Jones IS a conspiracy theorist and regular people got tired of hearing his insulting and heartless BS and dismissed him so they wouldn't have to anymore. If you add nothing to the discussion but made up hateful garbage, it's not surprising when no one wants to talk to you.
This has nothing to do with the discussion of Alex Jones nor does it lend any support to your argument about 230 requiring YouTube to post Alex Jones nonsense. I am still waiting for you to point out where 230 states that it only applies to "neutral public forums."
Do you agree with social media censoring out "Fake News"?
How so?
Care to elaborate, with the vastness of your intellectual gift?
Other posters have already taken pains to explain it to you, and I have done so in earlier posts. The law does not require websites to post content that violates their terms of service, the law does not require websites to do away with their terms of service. Nothing that you've posted, ever, has contradicted those simple facts.
They paid for the platform, it is their property, they are allowed to do what they want with their property.
I wouldn't expect a socialist like yourself to understand.
No, I get on them for misusing those words too, he's a fascist. Fascists are very keen on controlling the media also.
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.
