Author Topic: Free speech  (Read 2855 times)

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Free speech
« on: May 28, 2020, 03:51:47 PM »
Quote
On Tuesday, President Trump claimed on Twitter that Twitter is “stifling FREE SPEECH,” suggesting that Twitter is violating the First Amendment.


Using Twitter to attack free speech on twitter seems circular to me.  If I were twitter wanting to clamp down on free speech I wouldn't show that post. by posting it have they proved Trump wrong.

Begs the question we does free speech mean on social media platforms and what is Trumps definition of free speech?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #1 on: May 28, 2020, 04:04:59 PM »
The 1A is only partly about you having the right to say things that other people may not want to hear. More important, it guarantees that other people have the right to say what you might not want to hear.  That includes having the right to lie, but you don't have the right to stop people who hear your lies saying that you lied.  That would be stifling their right to free speech.

I am wondering why Joe Scarborough hasn't spoken out about this.  I think he would have the right to sue Trump for slander and/or libel since there is no factual basis for his claims.  In other words, he's lying.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #2 on: May 28, 2020, 04:32:30 PM »
Quote
On Tuesday, President Trump claimed on Twitter that Twitter is “stifling FREE SPEECH,” suggesting that Twitter is violating the First Amendment.


Using Twitter to attack free speech on twitter seems circular to me.  If I were twitter wanting to clamp down on free speech I wouldn't show that post. by posting it have they proved Trump wrong.

Begs the question we does free speech mean on social media platforms and what is Trumps definition of free speech?

It's kind of like sending a letter to the editor of a newspaper to complain about a newspaper's coverage. Printing the letter does not prove the newspaper is unbiased. It could just as easily be said to prove they know they are and don't care who knows it, they're happy to flaunt it. Where else should he have done it?

As a massive media platform, does Twitter have any responsibility for its content or for being fair in promoting some views over others?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #3 on: May 28, 2020, 04:40:19 PM »
I am wondering why Joe Scarborough hasn't spoken out about this.  I think he would have the right to sue Trump for slander and/or libel since there is no factual basis for his claims.  In other words, he's lying.
I'm pretty sure Trump hasn't come out and said "Joe S killed her!!"

Just that it's ridiculous there's not an ongoing investigation, and "questioning" whether Scarborough got away with murder - just asking!  Some people think so!! And maybe "an affair??"  "What about that investigator??"

Basically, he is being a coward and throwing out insinuations disguised as questions.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #4 on: May 28, 2020, 05:42:38 PM »
To be fair, the media does this constantly and Joe S is one of the most egregious. Turning those tactics against them is not great but it's certainly understandable. Most people realize that fighting back is not cowardly.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #5 on: May 28, 2020, 05:44:28 PM »
However an executive order aimed at punishing companies for managing their content sure sounds unconstitutional. I'm sure there will be a cacophony of voices defending why that's just fine though.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #6 on: May 28, 2020, 05:46:18 PM »
To be fair, the media does this constantly and Joe S is one of the most egregious. Turning those tactics against them is not great but it's certainly understandable. Most people realize that fighting back is not cowardly.

How about an example or two to enlighten us...

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #7 on: May 28, 2020, 06:07:09 PM »
Quote
As a massive media platform, does Twitter have any responsibility for its content or for being fair in promoting some views over others?

is a good question? In this case aren't they making both views known or more easily accessible ? Is that promoting one view over the other? Or is that in the eyes of the beholder and best left their? 

Trump has a habit of labeling anything or anyone that disagrees with him as fake, hateful, unfair... general he is being victimized while at the same time hypocritically using his speech to do exactly that.  If instead Trump he countered Twitter link to info that expanded on information about mail in voting with a reasoned explanation of why he holds the views that he does, wouldn't that be leadership. That would require more 280 characters of thought which after almost 4 years of leadership it remains unclear he is capable off. 
« Last Edit: May 28, 2020, 06:15:32 PM by rightleft22 »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #8 on: May 28, 2020, 06:25:03 PM »
To be fair, the media does this constantly and Joe S is one of the most egregious. Turning those tactics against them is not great but it's certainly understandable. Most people realize that fighting back is not cowardly.

How about an example or two to enlighten us...

Google morning joe. Get all the examples you want, or just watch his show a fewtimes.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #9 on: May 28, 2020, 06:43:54 PM »
To be fair, the media does this constantly and Joe S is one of the most egregious. Turning those tactics against them is not great but it's certainly understandable. Most people realize that fighting back is not cowardly.

How about an example or two to enlighten us...

Google morning joe. Get all the examples you want, or just watch his show a fewtimes.

I don't watch the show, but you either do and have seen these egregious goings on or have been informed about them on some far right blather site.  So I am depending on you to back up your assertion, otherwise it has no weight in the discussion.  Free speech allows you to say almost anything you want, no matter whether it has any basis in facts or reality.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #10 on: May 28, 2020, 06:46:47 PM »
Begs the question we does free speech mean on social media platforms and what is Trumps definition of free speech?
I think his definition of free speech is he should get to say anything that distracts from what would otherwise be the major news item of the day... and we keep falling for it.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #11 on: May 28, 2020, 06:55:41 PM »
However an executive order aimed at punishing companies for managing their content sure sounds unconstitutional. I'm sure there will be a cacophony of voices defending why that's just fine though.

I don’t know yet.

Is twitter a distributor? If they are, then they’re pretty much able to let the content fly however it comes. 

However, Twitter has gotten into the business of curating content, now altering posts with labels even. Does that put them in the realm of publisher, making them responsible for the content they do allow?

It’s my current understanding that the EO is really about getting social media to make the call on what they want to be. If they want to enjoy the protection of being a distributor, then they should get out of the content management business.

I would also argue that EO’s are and always have been unconstitutional.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2020, 06:59:14 PM by Crunch »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #12 on: May 28, 2020, 06:57:04 PM »
To be fair, the media does this constantly and Joe S is one of the most egregious. Turning those tactics against them is not great but it's certainly understandable. Most people realize that fighting back is not cowardly.

How about an example or two to enlighten us...

Google morning joe. Get all the examples you want, or just watch his show a fewtimes.

I don't watch the show, but you either do and have seen these egregious goings on or have been informed about them on some far right blather site.  So I am depending on you to back up your assertion, otherwise it has no weight in the discussion.  Free speech allows you to say almost anything you want, no matter whether it has any basis in facts or reality.

If you refuse to see it, it doesn’t happen. Ok. 

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #13 on: May 28, 2020, 07:19:38 PM »
I would also argue that EO’s are and always have been unconstitutional.

I largely agree, or at least that the scope should be massively curtailed. Like only in circumstances of a national emergency (a real one, like 9/11).

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #14 on: May 28, 2020, 07:49:06 PM »
I would also argue that EO’s are and always have been unconstitutional.

I largely agree, or at least that the scope should be massively curtailed. Like only in circumstances of a national emergency (a real one, like 9/11).

Another weird response.  You're missing a massive amount of information if you don't want to watch other news shows or read major newspapers.  I'm not surprised, but always disappointed in the way you present your view of the world.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #15 on: May 28, 2020, 08:04:46 PM »
I would also argue that EO’s are and always have been unconstitutional.

I largely agree, or at least that the scope should be massively curtailed. Like only in circumstances of a national emergency (a real one, like 9/11).

Another weird response.  You're missing a massive amount of information if you don't want to watch other news shows or read major newspapers.  I'm not surprised, but always disappointed in the way you present your view of the world.
I'm pretty sure this is not the quote you were responding to...

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #16 on: May 28, 2020, 09:51:07 PM »
You're right.  TheDrake's post snuck in there while I was logging in...Here's the response I was trying to make:

Quote
If you refuse to see it, it doesn’t happen. Ok.

Another weird response.  You're missing a massive amount of information if you don't want to watch other news shows or read major newspapers.  I'm not surprised, but always disappointed in the way you present your view of the world.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #17 on: May 29, 2020, 01:38:32 AM »
Quote
On Tuesday, President Trump claimed on Twitter that Twitter is “stifling FREE SPEECH,” suggesting that Twitter is violating the First Amendment.


Using Twitter to attack free speech on twitter seems circular to me.  If I were twitter wanting to clamp down on free speech I wouldn't show that post. by posting it have they proved Trump wrong.

Begs the question we does free speech mean on social media platforms and what is Trumps definition of free speech?

This is one of the more fantastic examples of the many dumb things Trump has tweeted. Jack also likes to self-harm when he presumes that his company is capable of fact checking hundreds of millions of random human thoughts. I believe Jack is relatively pure of heart but constantly butts up against the harsh reality of  the human psyche.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #18 on: May 29, 2020, 07:00:46 AM »
I think Dorsey is in over his head, but still can't come anywhere near Trump when it comes to crazy notions.  "Social media" is not a thing, but a way that people share opinions.  Even comments on news articles fall into that broad category.  The new EO isn't legally enforceable, but will invite lawsuits against every media outlet that anyone perceives to be biased, which includes every one of them.  I can't wait for FOX, Premier Networks or any other call-in talk radio show to have to defend themselves against their committed anti-liberal bias.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #19 on: May 29, 2020, 07:20:03 AM »
You're right.  TheDrake's post snuck in there while I was logging in...Here's the response I was trying to make:

Quote
If you refuse to see it, it doesn’t happen. Ok.

Another weird response.  You're missing a massive amount of information if you don't want to watch other news shows or read major newspapers.  I'm not surprised, but always disappointed in the way you present your view of the world.

You’re the one refusing to watch other shows, dude.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #20 on: May 29, 2020, 08:02:17 AM »
Gee, more fantasy.  I watch shows on different channels and read dozens of online articles every day.  But you never fail to disappoint when asked to back up things you say.  Show us clips or reports to back up your claims about Joe Scarborough being "one of the most egregious" for throwing out insinuations pretending to be questions. 

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #21 on: May 29, 2020, 08:34:24 AM »
You said you don’t watch Morning Joe. Changing that now? If you’re going to refuse to watch it, I can’t help you. There’s tons f clips online, it airs every morning. Inform yourself or just run along in ignorance. Makes no difference to me

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #22 on: May 29, 2020, 08:51:32 AM »
Quote
You said you don’t watch Morning Joe. Changing that now?

Golly, what you have is not a talent for selective misrepresentation, but more like a simple mean streak.

So, now I'll ask you to point out where I contradicted myself.  Since you never respond when you're cornered in a blatant lie or misinterpretation of facts, I won't expect you to do it this time, either.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #23 on: May 29, 2020, 08:52:43 AM »
smh

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #24 on: May 29, 2020, 08:53:43 AM »
Gosh, I watch morning Joe all the time, and although he can say controversial stuff, he's never insinuated that autopsy reports were wrong or that public figures literally got away with murder.

He also doesn't generally insinuate with leading questions like that: "many people are saying he is a murderer!"  "the investigator must have been corrupt!" "just sayin'!"

Feel free to provide examples if you can find them.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #25 on: May 29, 2020, 09:09:14 AM »
Joe Scarborough hasn't given much of a response to Trump's attacks against him, but this article outlines how he could sue Trump with a reasonable expectation to win.  The potential claims include slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation and reputational harm.  Klausutis’s widower might have just as strong a case.  Since these would be civil cases, they could be brought while Trump is still in office.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #26 on: May 29, 2020, 09:41:19 AM »
Gosh, I watch morning Joe all the time, and although he can say controversial stuff, he's never insinuated that autopsy reports were wrong or that public figures literally got away with murder.

He also doesn't generally insinuate with leading questions like that: "many people are saying he is a murderer!"  "the investigator must have been corrupt!" "just sayin'!"

Feel free to provide examples if you can find them.

As usual, a complete mischaracterization of what I said. I said, "the media does this constantly and Joe S is one of the most egregious." In that sentence, the "this" was in reference to you saying, "I think he would have the right to sue Trump for slander and/or libel since there is no factual basis for his claims.  In other words, he's lying."

I'm saying the media lies all the time, they use similar tactics to what Trump did to tell those lies. If you want to pretend I was specifically referring to autopsy reports (and I can't imagine how you go *that*), then you're really off the reservation and, once again, just making things up.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #27 on: May 29, 2020, 09:51:10 AM »
Gosh, I watch morning Joe all the time, and although he can say controversial stuff, he's never insinuated that autopsy reports were wrong or that public figures literally got away with murder.

He also doesn't generally insinuate with leading questions like that: "many people are saying he is a murderer!"  "the investigator must have been corrupt!" "just sayin'!"

Feel free to provide examples if you can find them.

As usual, a complete mischaracterization of what I said. I said, "the media does this constantly and Joe S is one of the most egregious." In that sentence, the "this" was in reference to you saying, "I think he would have the right to sue Trump for slander and/or libel since there is no factual basis for his claims.  In other words, he's lying."

I'm saying the media lies all the time, they use similar tactics to what Trump did to tell those lies. If you want to pretend I was specifically referring to autopsy reports (and I can't imagine how you go *that*), then you're really off the reservation and, once again, just making things up.

Golly, you specifically say Joe "is one of the most egregious" and keep refusing to back up that statement with even a single example.  Instead, you generalize to "the media lies all the time" as if that backs up your statement.  It doesn't even deflect.  Back up your statement, if you can.  If you can't, stop with these empty attacks.  Otherwise, your posts are indeed useless.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #28 on: May 29, 2020, 10:39:18 AM »
Isn't social media's immunity to various content rules based on their lack of editorial control? It seems like Twitter does have some editorial control over the content that gets posted.

Though should the rules change, I suspect it's the right that will find themselves on the losing end. Supposedly, the reason Twitter can't use the German anti-nazi filter on US based tweets is because it'd shut down too many members of the GOP.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #29 on: May 29, 2020, 10:49:41 AM »
. Supposedly, the reason Twitter can't use the German anti-nazi filter on US based tweets is because it'd shut down too many members of the GOP.

Didn't take long for Godwin's Law on this one.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #30 on: May 29, 2020, 11:00:42 AM »
Gosh, I watch morning Joe all the time, and although he can say controversial stuff, he's never insinuated that autopsy reports were wrong or that public figures literally got away with murder.

He also doesn't generally insinuate with leading questions like that: "many people are saying he is a murderer!"  "the investigator must have been corrupt!" "just sayin'!"

Feel free to provide examples if you can find them.

As usual, a complete mischaracterization of what I said. I said, "the media does this constantly and Joe S is one of the most egregious." In that sentence, the "this" was in reference to you saying, "I think he would have the right to sue Trump for slander and/or libel since there is no factual basis for his claims.  In other words, he's lying."

I'm saying the media lies all the time, they use similar tactics to what Trump did to tell those lies. If you want to pretend I was specifically referring to autopsy reports (and I can't imagine how you go *that*), then you're really off the reservation and, once again, just making things up.

Golly, you specifically say Joe "is one of the most egregious" and keep refusing to back up that statement with even a single example.  Instead, you generalize to "the media lies all the time" as if that backs up your statement.  It doesn't even deflect.  Back up your statement, if you can.  If you can't, stop with these empty attacks.  Otherwise, your posts are indeed useless.

You obviously read this post.  Still waiting.  Be a man and defend your bully trash talk.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #31 on: May 29, 2020, 12:56:40 PM »
Isn't social media's immunity to various content rules based on their lack of editorial control? It seems like Twitter does have some editorial control over the content that gets posted.

Though should the rules change, I suspect it's the right that will find themselves on the losing end. Supposedly, the reason Twitter can't use the German anti-nazi filter on US based tweets is because it'd shut down too many members of the GOP.

That would be Section 230 which is the gist of Trump's proposal. That prevents social media from being liable for their own lies or fabrications as they attack others.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #32 on: May 29, 2020, 12:58:38 PM »
Quote
That would be Section 230 which is the gist of Trump's proposal. That prevents social media from being liable for their own lies or fabrications as they attack others.

Twitter is not posting content ("lies or fabrications").

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #33 on: May 29, 2020, 01:02:36 PM »
Isn't social media's immunity to various content rules based on their lack of editorial control? It seems like Twitter does have some editorial control over the content that gets posted.

Though should the rules change, I suspect it's the right that will find themselves on the losing end. Supposedly, the reason Twitter can't use the German anti-nazi filter on US based tweets is because it'd shut down too many members of the GOP.

That would be Section 230 which is the gist of Trump's proposal. That prevents social media from being liable for their own lies or fabrications as they attack others.

I don't get it. Even if Section 230 gets abolished, what prevents twitter from completely banning Trump and his supporters if they want to, as selectively as they want to?

If 230 gets abolished, doesn't it just incentivize (indeed even force) twitter to exert MORE control over their users, rather than less, since they can be held liable for everything Trump (or anyone else) says?
« Last Edit: May 29, 2020, 01:10:04 PM by Aris Katsaris »

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #34 on: May 29, 2020, 01:05:33 PM »
Quote
That would be Section 230 which is the gist of Trump's proposal. That prevents social media from being liable for their own lies or fabrications as they attack others.

Twitter is not posting content ("lies or fabrications").
If Twitter starts more generally fact-checking and labelling tweets, that might actually be content, which could include lies or fabrications...

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #35 on: May 29, 2020, 01:09:20 PM »
Quote
That would be Section 230 which is the gist of Trump's proposal. That prevents social media from being liable for their own lies or fabrications as they attack others.

Twitter is not posting content ("lies or fabrications").
If Twitter starts more generally fact-checking and labelling tweets, that might actually be content, which could include lies or fabrications...

In theory, but fact-checking is a pretty benign area for most organizations.  I have a vague recollection that one of the dedicated fact-checking sites was challenged for a claimed factual error, which they corrected.  Other than that, I can't think of any cases.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #36 on: May 29, 2020, 01:16:25 PM »
If 230 gets abolished, doesn't it just incentivize (indeed even force) twitter to exert MORE control over their users, rather than less, since they can be held liable for everything Trump (or anyone else) says?
Yes.  It's the executive order of unintended consequences.  Of course, section 230 will not be changed, because sane people in the legislatures realize the effects it would have, even while they pretend not to (while also knowing that they will never be called upon to change it significantly.)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #37 on: May 29, 2020, 01:18:30 PM »
Isn't social media's immunity to various content rules based on their lack of editorial control? It seems like Twitter does have some editorial control over the content that gets posted.

Though should the rules change, I suspect it's the right that will find themselves on the losing end. Supposedly, the reason Twitter can't use the German anti-nazi filter on US based tweets is because it'd shut down too many members of the GOP.

That would be Section 230 which is the gist of Trump's proposal. That prevents social media from being liable for their own lies or fabrications as they attack others.

I don't get it. Even if Section 230 gets abolished, what prevents twitter from completely banning Trump and his supporters if they want to, as selectively as they want to?

If 230 gets abolished, doesn't it just incentivize (indeed even force) twitter to exert MORE control over their users, rather than less, since they can be held liable for everything Trump (or anyone else) says?

There are a number of ways that 230 could impact if abolished. The law was enacted because Prodigy did some moderation, and at the time that meant they had to moderate everything. There are two ways they  could go.

1. Remove all moderation

Every platform would be flooded with racial, pornographic, violent content because all filters would have to be removed. Terrorists could post videos and recruit with impunity. There could be no community standards enforced, and that includes people harassing each other. There's no halfway here once 230 is gone. They can't just dial it back some.

2. Maximum moderation

Posts would never be allowed in real time. An army of paid or unpaid wikipedia like volunteers would review each and every post, and err entirely on the side of caution.

By the way, I'm pretty sure its not just the big tech companies. Ornery is a publicly available forum, and as such nobody could be censored. I'm not even sure you could put a profanity filter in place. Of course, someone would have to notice. But I suspect tons of websites with comments sections would also have to disable them or abandon any controls.

Abolish sounds nice for a soundbite, but what is more likely is modification specifying what moderation is or is not allowed.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #38 on: May 29, 2020, 01:29:01 PM »
I don't get it. Even if Section 230 gets abolished, what prevents twitter from completely banning Trump and his supporters if they want to, as selectively as they want to?

If 230 gets abolished, doesn't it just incentivize (indeed even force) twitter to exert MORE control over their users, rather than less, since they can be held liable for everything Trump (or anyone else) says?

Exactly.  I don't think this will go the way Trump thinks it will.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #39 on: May 29, 2020, 01:29:46 PM »
...Ornery is a publicly available forum, and as such nobody could be censored. I'm not even sure you could put a profanity filter in place. Of course, someone would have to notice. But I suspect tons of websites with comments sections would also have to disable them or abandon any controls.

Abolish sounds nice for a soundbite, but what is more likely is modification specifying what moderation is or is not allowed.

No - it's handled differently. Certain words can be automatically replaced by less-objectionable ones, and mods can broom spammers and trolls.

What is being argued is the big server combines using politics to decide who wins debates.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #40 on: May 29, 2020, 01:31:43 PM »
I don't get it. Even if Section 230 gets abolished, what prevents twitter from completely banning Trump and his supporters if they want to, as selectively as they want to?

If 230 gets abolished, doesn't it just incentivize (indeed even force) twitter to exert MORE control over their users, rather than less, since they can be held liable for everything Trump (or anyone else) says?

Exactly.  I don't think this will go the way Trump thinks it will.

No. If 230 goes away, then the editorial decision to lie about what is fact and what isn't can end up in court, and the perp can pay the penalty for the decisions he/she made, instead of skating.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #41 on: May 29, 2020, 01:39:00 PM »
...Ornery is a publicly available forum, and as such nobody could be censored. I'm not even sure you could put a profanity filter in place. Of course, someone would have to notice. But I suspect tons of websites with comments sections would also have to disable them or abandon any controls.

Abolish sounds nice for a soundbite, but what is more likely is modification specifying what moderation is or is not allowed.

No - it's handled differently. Certain words can be automatically replaced by less-objectionable ones, and mods can broom spammers and trolls.

What is being argued is the big server combines using politics to decide who wins debates.

Except the case that prompted 230 had nothing to do with that. It was a defamation case.

Read it

230 goes away, and suddenly they have to vet all content. They become liable for people offering miracle cures and financial opportunities. They would have to fact check EVERYTHING to make sure nobody was making an untrue statement about someone else. They'd be liable for every jackass engaged in a flame war, every criticism of a corporate entity that alleged they were engaged in fraud.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #42 on: May 29, 2020, 01:40:05 PM »
No. If 230 goes away, then the editorial decision to lie about what is fact and what isn't can end up in court, and the perp can pay the penalty for the decisions he/she made, instead of skating.

So, too, can if Twitter should be held responsible any consequences arising from posting "The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat." Twitter might decide not to post such things in order to avoid paying a penalty.

ETA: The all or nothing approach of editing was already used to take down sites advertising sex work. They screened out ads for trafficking or regarding children. That was determined to be editorial control so they became responsible for what was posted and had to shut down.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2020, 01:45:20 PM by NobleHunter »

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #43 on: May 29, 2020, 01:43:06 PM »
Quote
What is being argued is the big server combines using politics to decide who wins debates.

Didn't Republicans generally support the Supreme Court decision "Citizens United v. FEC" which argued that corporations can spend as much money as they want to influence politics?

Quote
No. If 230 goes away, then the editorial decision to lie about what is fact and what isn't can end up in court, and the perp can pay the penalty for the decisions he/she made, instead of skating

As far as I can tell, if 230 goes away it means twitter/facebook/google/etc, aren't allowed to let lies go unchallenged, which means even stricter fact-checking, and means booting people who regularly lie.

Trump's clearly not doing this to enable free speech, as it'll be the very opposite, all media needing to implement stronger controls.

He's doing it as a weapon to enforce internet companies to be afraid of the government arbitrarily punishing them for whatever anyone among the millions of their users says, and therefore becoming goverment sycophants to make sure they don't get the government angry at them.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #44 on: May 29, 2020, 01:55:43 PM »
Except the case that prompted 230 had nothing to do with that. It was a defamation case.

Read it

230 goes away, and suddenly they have to vet all content.

I'm not sure I understand the connection to Twitter here. 230 seems to be about ISP's and how they are not publishers of content (which is a "duh" statement to make for anyone who knows what an ISP is). Here we're talking about a forum where people post messages. It's not totally unlike a regular forum like Ornery, in that it's a hosted site where people can talk about whatever they like. It's moderated by a corporate team rather than one volunteer, but otherwise it's a differently-tooled message board.

So what does 230 have to do with online forums? An ISP is certainly not a forum as they provide no infrastructure to post content, so I don't see the legal connection. Am I missing something?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #45 on: May 29, 2020, 02:21:50 PM »
Except the case that prompted 230 had nothing to do with that. It was a defamation case.

Read it

230 goes away, and suddenly they have to vet all content.

I'm not sure I understand the connection to Twitter here. 230 seems to be about ISP's and how they are not publishers of content (which is a "duh" statement to make for anyone who knows what an ISP is). Here we're talking about a forum where people post messages. It's not totally unlike a regular forum like Ornery, in that it's a hosted site where people can talk about whatever they like. It's moderated by a corporate team rather than one volunteer, but otherwise it's a differently-tooled message board.

So what does 230 have to do with online forums? An ISP is certainly not a forum as they provide no infrastructure to post content, so I don't see the legal connection. Am I missing something?

An interesting point. It is somewhat unclear from the original case, since Prodigy in the original case was both ISP and content moderator. EFF has a lot more cases where 230 was used to defend against lawsuits. The Village Voice Media case is probably the most enlightening. Backpage was sued for aiding and abetting trafficking and they were protected by 230. They were definitely not an ISP, and they provided a forum where actual illegal activity occurred. That's why they had to pass a new law FOSTA-SESTA to carve the 230 protection away from sex work ads. You don't see any cases against the prominent big tech sites, I suspect because no lawyer thought they could get past 230.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #46 on: May 29, 2020, 03:04:16 PM »
a lot more cases

I won't take the time to read through every single case, but I looked through a bunch of them, and all of them boil down to whether the service or person being sued was a content creator / publisher, or was just reposting or providing access for other people to post things. 230 protects you when you are not a publisher, but you're fair game if you either created the content, or distributed it yourself (which means used it as your own content even if it was written by a third party).

I guess then my next question is - why would removing 230 be a way of stopping Twitter from creating anti-Republican bias? If they are curating content to create a desired result for their readership, that would seem to count as "using third-party content as your own content", effectively reposting things to your own viewer base to reach your own 'people'. The mechanical difference on Twitter is the people come to you, rather than you emailing them a newsletter, but if the effect is that you're creating a curated selection of content for them then it would seem to me that 230 shouldn't apply and they should be fair game. Is the problem that there's already a supreme court precedent saying that they are protected?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #47 on: May 29, 2020, 03:15:20 PM »
As far as I can tell, if 230 goes away it means twitter/facebook/google/etc, aren't allowed to let lies go unchallenged, which means even stricter fact-checking, and means booting people who regularly lie.

Trump's clearly not doing this to enable free speech, as it'll be the very opposite, all media needing to implement stronger controls.

He's doing it as a weapon to enforce internet companies to be afraid of the government arbitrarily punishing them for whatever anyone among the millions of their users says, and therefore becoming goverment sycophants to make sure they don't get the government angry at them.
Maybe - but more likely he's using it to distract, to change the channel, and rile up his base.  I expect he knows this is going nowhere.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #48 on: May 29, 2020, 03:37:28 PM »
I am wondering why Joe Scarborough hasn't spoken out about this.  I think he would have the right to sue Trump for slander and/or libel since there is no factual basis for his claims.  In other words, he's lying.

I think Scarborough might be able to successfully sue for libel.  He is a public figure, so actual malice has to be proven.  Actual malice here would be a 'reckless disregard for the truth' which I think there is a strong case for.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #49 on: May 29, 2020, 04:25:47 PM »
Isn't social media's immunity to various content rules based on their lack of editorial control? It seems like Twitter does have some editorial control over the content that gets posted.

Though should the rules change, I suspect it's the right that will find themselves on the losing end. Supposedly, the reason Twitter can't use the German anti-nazi filter on US based tweets is because it'd shut down too many members of the GOP.

It isn't just social media, it's Google and its search results, ISP's and what their users put online. They were all given a significant amount of immunity against legal actions because "it was impossible to police" at the time. I alluded to that very item about a week ago.

Facebook, Twitter, and Google(via YouTube) are demonstrating they can in fact exercise near real-time editorial control of their content. So it's clear that it no longer is "nearly impossible" for them to achieve this, of course, you need to be a company large enough that you can afford a multi-million dollar R&D team working on machine learning to accomplish it, so most companies of the same type shouldn't be caught up in all of this.

Either you're a content distributor who exercises no control over the user provided content(and at most attach disclaimers on the more egregious offenses), in which case you can continue to get the legal immunities offered.

Or your a curated content distributor, who does exercise editorial control over user generated content, and accept the legal liabilities that come with that.