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.
I extrapolated that because you were defending Bent Bow, who argued EXACTLY THAT. He/she said the government should mandate it. You defended it.
You extrapolated incorrectly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost
So, if you are saying that you disagree with BentBow, and that you AGREE that Facebook had every right to not repost InfoWars, then I will happily admit that I misunderstood your position, and I will APOLOGIZE for being wrong.
Actually you just did aplolgize here. But you can do it if you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost
Are you saying that Facebook was in the right?
Are you saying that Facebook should be required to allow InfoWars to use their services uninhibited?
Or are you saying something else. if it's something else, please clarify, because it seems a LOT of people are hearing you say something different than you claim in your response to me.
No not alot. A few with a twisted agenda that ran with it when they THOUGHT they had something on ME. Not the issue at hand but on me. All one has to do is look at their silly posts and their deflections.
I have posted many times how I defend property rights and the private property owner. I have posted the following sentiment already, "when one has a right to do something that doesn't mean they should". Extrapolate that. lol
After reading my posts the only logical conclusion is the ones who don't get it, actually refuse to get it.
All these internet social media companies won't be in this grey zone for long:
-If you delete and censor content and act as an editor then you are a publisher, and as all publishers are legally liable to all the content that is on your website.
-If you do not want to be liable for the content and claim that you are a social public platform that means you should be regulated as a public utility and follow the first amendment, where the only content that can be taken down is via a court order. In this case you are not held liable for the content that is on your public platform.
Right now all these social media companies pick and choose what they are on a case by case basis. When they get complaints about their content they claim they are merely a platform and support free speech, when it is something they delete and censor, all of a sudden they are a private publisher that reserves editorial rights to the content other people put out. Soon the legislators or judges would get tired of this bs and will clearly define what these media companies are.
All these internet social media companies won't be in this grey zone for long:
-If you delete and censor content and act as an editor then you are a publisher, and as all publishers are legally liable to all the content that is on your website.
-If you do not want to be liable for the content and claim that you are a social public platform that means you should be regulated as a public utility and follow the first amendment, where the only content that can be taken down is via a court order. On the other hand, you are not held liable for the content that is on your public platform.
Right now all these social companies pick and choose of what they are on the case by case basis. When they get complaints about their content they claim they are merely a platform and support free speech, when it is something they delete and censor, all of a sudden they are a private publisher that reserves editorial rights to the content other people put out. Soon the legislators or judges would get tired of this bs and will clearly define what these media companies are.
Interesting point. Does the use of public facilities play into this? Using telephone pools to run lines from.
LOL. Good. If you run the company OF COURSE you get to make those sorts of discussions. I swear folks on the right love accusing others of being communists, and socialists, while at the same time cheering on the ideals behind them for their own purposes.
I dont see you complaining about pamplin media much.
Bingo, his business, his rules. Everyone should ban Infowars...........what garbage.
Isn't the issue about providing access to all info since you're in the info business?
Since when? Printers are in the information business, but they can most certainly take a stance on what materials they wish to be involved in disseminating. (Incidentally, it's highly debatable if Alex Jones' utterings have anything to to do with information.)
Quote:
Or to be direct, even if one has the right to do so, they shouldn't
What nonsense. If printers had refused to do business with Julius Streicher, the world would have been a better place. If people had refused to do business with the RTLM radio stations, the Hutus would have lacked a crucial propaganda tool in their genocide attempt.
Being in the "information business" actually comes with a responsibility.
All these internet social media companies won't be in this grey zone for long:
-If you delete and censor content and act as an editor then you are a publisher, and as all publishers are legally liable to all the content that is on your website.
-If you do not want to be liable for the content and claim that you are a social public platform that means you should be regulated as a public utility and follow the first amendment, where the only content that can be taken down is via a court order. In this case you are not held liable for the content that is on your public platform.
Right now all these social media companies pick and choose what they are on a case by case basis. When they get complaints about their content they claim they are merely a platform and support free speech, when it is something they delete and censor, all of a sudden they are a private publisher that reserves editorial rights to the content other people put out. Soon the legislators or judges would get tired of this bs and will clearly define what these media companies are.
Section 230 applies to this and editing things, like moderating, does not automatically turn these sites into publishers. See the part under "Do I lose Section 230 immunity if I edit the content?"
Lets face the facts. Throwing the legalities out, everyone who agrees with banning Infowars, is being closeminded, and more importantly has weak minded beliefs. How does infowars being on facebook change your beliefs? Afraid of the truth? Ask those questions. If you don't want to read infowars then don't.
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.
Everyone should ban Infowars...........what garbage.
