Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Rex Vallachorum, Oct 29, 2020.
I thought that decision was crap....
I'm not the one being a rank hypocrite here, that's you....
They are censoring people's messages - that means they are a publisher, not a platform (like they claim), and publishers can be sued for libel and slander. By their own admission, they have published things that should not have been (like DJT's tax returns, or Melania's phone conversations) yet claim they won't allow such things, when it's one side and not the other.
So, like Burebista says, I can't wait to see all the lawsuits that come flooding in. They will find out what "death by 1000 cuts" means.
The fact that you think that shows your true colors.
Ah the old publisher/platform trope...
Enjoy this through debunking by the national review..
Actual US Law:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of 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.
Not all ate willing to take a knee.
Try again, dullard.
The law doesn't protect them if they censor and fact-check their users. In doing that, they are forfeiting the protection offered to them by the law as a platform, and they become publishers.
And bears repeating, they are using government owned and regulated wi-fi and cellular radio frequencies to reach their users. To persuade them to support one candidate and one Party over another by censoring and suppressing information from reaching one category of users or another is called in-kind political contribution and it is illegal.
The government can't be made part of that, and since the government owns the radio waves...
That's not how it works. The radio frequency license holders are the cell phone companies and the wi-fi router manufacturers.
They can be platforms, or they can control what's said on their sites; they've chosen to control what gets said, and therefore can't be platforms. Simple enough.
This forbidden unlawful carnal knowledge, Sierra, tango, India, Charlie, kilo at Twitter has to go!.
Yes indeed, they are license holders.
The government is the owner and it can impose conditions.
Think of how it works with online movie and music piracy: RIAA doesn't go after you if you download pirated content. They send a letter to your ISP letting them know you're stealing stuff and your ISP is sending you their letter warning you to stop or they disconnect your service.
Now replace RIAA with the government, the ISPs with the cellular companies, and Twitter/Facebook are the users breaking the law.
That's how it works.
Stare Decisis Mr. Denial. The law applies equally, and since that "crap" decision stands, it must apply to TwatFace.