ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, May 28, 2020

No more hiding behind 230

President Trump signs the executive order to stop the abusive behavior of the social media giants:
Sec. 2.  Protections Against Online Censorship.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet.  Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)).  47 U.S.C. 230(c).  It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.

Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation.  As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content.  In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material.  The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.”  47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3).  The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.

In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.”  It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree.  Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike.  When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct.  It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.
Section 230(c) is the key to the publisher/not publisher dance behind which the social media giants hide.

Labels: ,

79 Comments:

Blogger MaskettaMan May 28, 2020 8:56 PM  

Here's a chance at reprisals. Every man with a case has a duty to God and country to take a bite out of these evil companies.

Blogger Steffen May 28, 2020 9:00 PM  

Excellent. If they can't deal with court cases, the god-emperor can always offer to fold their company into the Post Office.

Blogger Glenn May 28, 2020 9:15 PM  

GE: "We'd have to develop other sites".

Blogger Hamilton May 28, 2020 9:38 PM  

Finally. This has been going on for too long. Tucker Carlson called out Twitter last night.

Blogger Jack Ward May 28, 2020 9:39 PM  

Now we see how many and how quickly the usual leftest, activists federal judges jump on Trump to stop this EO from its intended purpose.
I would like to see numerous [if needed] 'vacations' for such low life judges, if they dare to rear their ugly heads, in gitmo. Vacations long enough for tribunals and the like, followed by many years in prisons suitable for the crimes. Is this too much to ask for?
Keep up the skeer, GE.

Blogger Doktor Jeep May 28, 2020 9:40 PM  

Wow. He did it.
I forecast a lot of wind from all the bowties that will be spinning.

Blogger Monotonous Languor May 28, 2020 9:50 PM  

Finally! Someone on the right gets it right.
Now we get to sit back and see which lawfare tactics the left pulls out of its bag of tricks, as they try to squelch this EO.

Blogger SciVo May 28, 2020 10:00 PM  

On the one hand, they deserve so much worse that doing so little is practically an insult to justice. On the other hand, they freely allow so much unlawful content (as long as it has the right politics) that they could be very well pounded, if plaintiffs step up.

Blogger God Emperor Memes May 28, 2020 10:13 PM  

Using an Executive Order to stop (((them))) from preventing TGE from bypassing the traditional media. Excellent.

Blogger JovianStorm May 28, 2020 10:18 PM  

Is it time to ban the blackpillers on this who said Trump would never stand up to Zuck, Jack and the rest?

I never get tired of winning... Coming to this site for daily inspiration and news has done wonders for my outlook on life.

Blogger MacD May 28, 2020 10:39 PM  

Hmmm. Game changing if enforced.

Blogger Guy Incognito May 28, 2020 10:45 PM  

Let's make like a Minnesota protestor and (figuratively) burn the tech giants down!

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia May 28, 2020 11:05 PM  

Jack Dorsey now has a serious decision to make.

Does he (1) quietly and unobtrusively cave to this EO, even though he goes through the motions of outrage?

Or (2) does he in fact double down?

Right now you know, you just know, that he's Zooming nonstop with his internal lawyers and outside counsel on the next move.

Five will get you ten that there is a lawyer contingent saying

"Jack, sweetheart, baby, you simply do not want an endless stream of libel lawsuits and FEC rulings that you are a publisher.

"The trials lawyers of America -- most of whom are Democrats, by the way -- are salivating at the prospect of suing you over and over and over again.

"So call off your SJW dogs, and you can moan and complain and tut tut at Trump's overreach.

"But the reality of actually suppressing your eager beaver wokey SJWs will lead, inevitably, to the whole controversy petering out like a baby boomer who forgot to take his Viagra."

Blogger Kevin May 28, 2020 11:15 PM  

Twitter fucked up putting those links in trumps tweets. They probably thought nothing of it. It probably took him the 48 hours or however long to figure out what he could do.

Blogger Uncle Maffoo May 28, 2020 11:23 PM  

It's about time.

Blogger nswhorse May 28, 2020 11:38 PM  

The cuckservative and libertardian bowties have been spinning furiously. Somehow they get out of this that Trump is stifling twitter's free speech.

Blogger Submitted2Christ May 28, 2020 11:42 PM  

I imagine this is only the start to his plan. Class action time.

These people are stupid
These people are sick
Q

Trump 2020 MAGA!

Blogger ZhukovG May 28, 2020 11:45 PM  

I want to know when we can donate to the casting of the statue of our glorious GE.

Ad Victoriam, Deo Vindice, Ave Caesar Trump!

Blogger Monotonous Languor May 28, 2020 11:51 PM  

Section 230 is also a prime example of how lawyers deliberately write laws to make them convoluted and full of legal loopholes. I wonder why they always do that ???
Mmmmm, maybe it has something to do with the resulting endless torts that supply endless sums of money directly into their pocketbooks. (Gee, let's not even get into the power-trip head games that massage their egos.)

Blogger Jad May 29, 2020 12:03 AM  

Hooray! Now come the court cases, right?

Blogger nyan May 29, 2020 12:23 AM  

KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia wrote:Or (2) does he in fact double down?

Fill in the blanks: SJWs ________ double down. Jack is 100% SJW.

Blogger CM May 29, 2020 12:35 AM  

The cuckservative and libertardian bowties have been spinning furiously. Somehow they get out of this that Trump is stifling twitter's free speech.

Trying to figure my way around their argument that it be the next CRA that breaks down all the private walls.

I pointed out that for hundreds of years, we've figured out how to allow common space and walled gardens to exist in the real world. Is it impossible to figure out how to achieve that on the internet? They want the entirety of the internet to be private space.

Blogger SciVo May 29, 2020 12:36 AM  

@KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia:

Well you're not wrong, that is what his lawyers will tell him. Buy SJWs always double down, so.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch May 29, 2020 12:51 AM  

Trump didn't do this for you. He did this because it finally happened to him.

Blogger Tupla-J May 29, 2020 12:54 AM  

Nice. I'm currently falsely accused locked out of twitter. We'll see if they reopen the account some time in the future.

Blogger Unknown May 29, 2020 1:00 AM  

If anyone can figure out how to sue on the basis of nothing, it would be the Evil Legion of Evil.

Blogger aps May 29, 2020 1:08 AM  

Goodness that's amazing from Trump.

Blogger buzzardist May 29, 2020 1:16 AM  

Twitter’s ability to shield itself from liability under the guise that users are solely responsible for content is not a First Amendment rights issue, but a special legal protection given by the government to tech platforms that no one else in any other sector of society could reasonably claim. Twitter and the corporatocracy, Trump has made clear, are subject to the same liability laws as everyone else. It’s an equal protection issue.

Never-Trumpers are now so far gone that they are rejecting rule of law and equal protection publicly? At least the mask has dropped.

Blogger glueballs May 29, 2020 1:19 AM  

I am published re this subject matter under peer review since inception ca. 1995. I am fit to state how this scheme should operate. Distilled, an online entity is either a conduit through which information passively passes or else an active publisher. The entity is largely freed of legal liability if merely a conduit. Once an entity exercises editorial control then that entity no longer can claim the legal liability shelters of operating as a mere conduit. The actual exercise of revision, as a pattern, renders the entity a publisher. If I could earn more money attacking this statute, as compared with patent, I would. But legitimate patent dealings have made me a multi-millionaire, at least on paper and I know this is illusionary, fake and product of evil.

Blogger tublecane May 29, 2020 1:40 AM  

Wasn't on Twitter until 2017, and I didn't spend much time on it. But I was suspended no fewer than 6 times, which I know because I made new email accounts every time.

No skin off my back, but can I get compensated for that, please?

By the way, they never tell you why. It just happens. That's the annoying part to me.

Blogger crescent wrench May 29, 2020 1:57 AM  

Monotonous Languor wrote:Section 230 is also a prime example of how lawyers deliberately write laws to make them convoluted and full of legal loopholes.

The constitutional term for this is "Arbitrary and Capricious".

Lawfare needs to ensue an multiple fronts at this point.

Use the DC Circuit's own "Orange Man Bad" decision declaring Trump's twitter a public forum to have it ruled a violation of constitutional rights for twitter themselves to get between constituents and Trump's feed by banning them.

Use friends with copyright and defamation cases to swarm carefully-shopped districts to force a ruling AND force a circuit split with the "orange man bad" 9th to get it into the supreme court.

It's time for legal minds like Sidney Powell, Harmeet Dhillon, Volokh, and Cernovich to be brought to the fore.

Blogger Nihil Dicit May 29, 2020 2:04 AM  

@9 - Definitely number 2. They're on the right side of history after all, so why should they give up their noble fight against this sort of "fascism"?

Blogger crescent wrench May 29, 2020 2:07 AM  

Jad wrote:Hooray! Now come the court cases, right?

Not yet.
Assuming Trump has his FCC primed for this, it will realistically take at the very least 90 days per fcc's publicly-documented "rulemaking process". That puts the rules in place in September, after which parties have the capacity to litigate it, meaning at least 2 years of injunctions from hawaii.

This should have impact in the 2022 election season going forward.

Blogger lowercaseb May 29, 2020 2:13 AM  

You should hear Torba tut tuting toall his users about this EO.

I'm so glad I got off of there after 2016.

Blogger JamesB.BKK May 29, 2020 2:15 AM  

KPK&c: I've been told by a reliable predictor that they always double down.

Blogger TCUegon May 29, 2020 2:23 AM  

The Emperor protects.

Blogger Rabid Ratel May 29, 2020 2:24 AM  

Maskettaman & Jad - Yes, they need to be slapped by a million or two cases until they are reeling around like the demented drunk clowns they really are.

GE, keep up the good work, and you too VoxQ!

Blogger Sean May 29, 2020 2:28 AM  

Great time to sign the EO, before the election! Definitely going to be a fight on Trump's hands as he battles the various Deep State parties that will be determined to stop this. But anyhow I think this is a great first step to take!

I've read parts of the EO and it appears that the DoJ will be handling some of the actions?

Anyone can comment on the likely outcome of the EO?

Blogger Dole May 29, 2020 2:51 AM  

What will the conservative whine about now that Trump kept his promise again?

Bake that cake!

Blogger Harambe May 29, 2020 2:59 AM  

I am reminded of a scene from Pirates of the Caribbean every time Daddy Trump does what he says he'll do and then people act shocked. To quote Jack Sparow: "I do that a lot and yet people are always surprised".

Blogger Burn May 29, 2020 3:05 AM  

Far better than nothing, but double edged: this could result in even more draconian censorship, as the socialmedismos could go apetit taking down anything even slightly controversial to avoid falling liable.

I have a simpler solution: pass a law stating that social media companies over X number of users cannot ban or restrict users for lawful speech.

That's really all it would take. I think it would be difficult to argue against the government passing a law that explicitly protects the ideals of our Constitution. We put far more restrictive regulations on all manner of businesses every day.

Blogger DroppingBear May 29, 2020 3:16 AM  

The madman actually did something. Well in Trump.

Blogger Zastavnik Džemo May 29, 2020 3:37 AM  

Wow. Just read the whole thing, amazing, Vox did not even paste the best part. It seems a team of capable people was allowed to write this much needed EO because Alpha got pissed on someone tagging his tweets, hahahaha. Skin in the game.

Blogger Kevin C. May 29, 2020 3:53 AM  

I read the EO, and I see a lot of vague directives to various federal bureaucrats (and Fed bureaucrats are ~90% lefties).

It says "…within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary)… shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify…"

And when the FCC "considers" this petition and request, and decides, "naw, the status quo is fine, our application of section 230(c) wherein Twitter is free to deplatform the right *does* properly reflect the purpose of the section, 'all appropriate actions' have been taken, and we're not changing a thing"?
(Then the courts apply "Chevron deference" to the FCC's decision.)

"The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms."

So when they make this "review" and decide, naw, everything's fine as is?

"Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget."

And when that director rubber stamps and dutifully files them away, announcing that the job is done while nothing changes?

"The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform… and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices."

And when the lefty lawyers in the DoJ officially clear Google, Twitter, et al. of any sort of 'viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices'?

"In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints… White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)."

And when the DoJ and FTC say "okay, we've listened to these complaints… and dismissed them all; the status quo is just fine"?

"The FTC shall consider taking action… to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce"

"the FTC shall also… consider whether complaints allege violations of law… FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints…"

And when the FTC "considers" taking action, "considers" complaints, "considers" a report… but then decides not to?

"The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices."

And when that working group decides *against* enforcement?

"The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order."

And when the proposed legislation is toothless verbiage full of gaping loopholes that will change nothing?

The bureaucrats have a panoply of techniques to ensure none of this goes anywhere, to create the formal appearance of compliance with this order while in practice ignoring it.

Blogger Mathias May 29, 2020 4:06 AM  

Looks like Twitter is doubling down again, and has censored/editorialized Trump's "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" tweet. This should be fun.

Anonymous Anonymous May 29, 2020 4:24 AM  

Is YouTube considered social media?

Blogger weka May 29, 2020 4:29 AM  

Can we suggest the lawfare lead to all parties who oppose TGE being offered two options...

1. Rendition to Pakistan.
2. A free helicopter ride.

Judges included.

Blogger rikjames.313 May 29, 2020 6:33 AM  

Twitter doubled down last night. They know at least 10 federal judges will issue nationwide injunctions to protect them, and every one of them will ignore the circuit (federal appeals court) ruling that Trump's personal twitter is a government communications channel and cannot be censored in any way, as will the circuit courts

Blogger Damelon Brinn May 29, 2020 6:44 AM  

Jack Dorsey now has a serious decision to make.

My theory for three years has been that Trump has something on Dorsey. Maybe they really did try to put a GPS tracker on his phone that time when his account was deleted for 11 minutes. Anyway, some kind of arm-twisting is the only way I can explain Twitter not banning him a long time ago. His account is extremely effective, and Twitter could be a hero to every SJW in the world by banning him. There has to be a reason they haven't, and we've seen that lost profits from lost users, even if that would happen, isn't reason enough for SJWs to restrain their urges.

Anyway, if I'm right about that, I would expect Twitter to bitch and fight but ultimately cave in, so that its example can be used against the more important targets like Facebook and Google.

Blogger bramley say Enoch woz right May 29, 2020 7:15 AM  

Just nationalise them FFS. Then have the Tweetmaster General be appointed by the president.

These are companies that have grown through private enterprise to hold a monopoly position akin to that of a public utility. Take them.

Blogger boogeyman May 29, 2020 8:28 AM  

41 Burn

But that would mean they would have to ban/censor all the SJWs too, and since they are the most ardent users of the service, doing that would effectively kill Twatter the same as if they were sued to death.

If the EO can stick through the shit storm sure to come via the courts, Twatter and the other socials will have three choices: either die a death of a million lawsuits, alienate the social justice cultists - a core part of their customer base and work force, or stop screwing with all posts and posters who aren't breaking the law. Since "fighting the Nazis" is a key part of their secular faith, I'm betting they'll slit their own throat one way or another before they let the likes of Alex Jones and the Bad Orange Man use their platform without restriction.

Blogger Akulkis May 29, 2020 9:06 AM  

"Twitter’s ability to shield itself from liability under the guise that users are solely responsible for content is not a First Amendment rights issue, but a special legal protection given by the government to tech platforms that no one else in any other sector of society could reasonably claim. Twitter and the corporatocracy, Trump has made clear, are subject to the same liability laws as everyone else. It’s an equal protection issue."

Wrong. The telephone company has had such immunity for a century.

Look up "common carrier" to see why telephone companies are NOT charged with being co-conspirators when two crooks plan or execute a crime by means of conversations over the telephone system.

Hint: The telephone system doesn't go around listening in on calls and cutting off calls that operators disapprove of.

As soon as the social media companies decided to play "This one's good and that one's bad" they immediately become criminally and civilly liable for ANYBODY doing ANYTHING objectionable on their systems. The only way to win the game of "censorship" is to not play.

Blogger Akulkis May 29, 2020 9:11 AM  

"I have a simpler solution: pass a law stating that social media companies over X number of users cannot ban or restrict users for lawful speech."

That's what the EO does.

Blogger Submitted2Christ May 29, 2020 10:17 AM  

Negative. Timming is everything. There are no coincidences. GE FTW

Blogger Tars Tarkas May 29, 2020 10:35 AM  

"obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable"

You can drive a Mac truck through that loophole. "Otherwise objectionable" is a catch-all and it is going to catch whatever they want it to catch and the courts are going to side with them.

Trump cannot do this alone with the EO. Congress needs to re-write the law or the courts need to side with the people.

Blogger Daniel May 29, 2020 11:26 AM  

Trump baited the hook yesterday with the tweet...and Twitter blindly chomped down. That was masterful.

Blogger crescent wrench May 29, 2020 11:35 AM  

@55 And "good faith" is an equally-sized loophole that can be used by properly-partisan judges. (E.G. NOT McTurtle's 'federalist society' judges)

The other option: attack both of these nebulous terms as "arbitrary and capricious" and get section 230 thrown out as unconstitutional.

Again: Lawfare Lawfare Lawfare. If the right had focused even 1/100th of their "think tank" budget on lawfare instead of bow-ties it would have been done already.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 29, 2020 12:17 PM  

... but double edged: this could result in even more draconian censorship, as the socialmedismos could go apetit taking down anything even slightly controversial to avoid falling liable.
That would be considerably better than the one-sided censorship we have now. It's also not a realistic concern.

Blogger Gregory the Tall May 29, 2020 1:29 PM  

Up from the pond wrote:If anyone can figure out how to sue on the basis of nothing, it would be the Evil Legion of Evil.
Whilst this may well be the case your comment has nothing to do with the legal issues we are talking about here. What exactly do you mean by "nothing"?

Blogger Gregory the Tall May 29, 2020 1:41 PM  

It probably took him the 48 hours or however long to figure out what he could do.
I think he had it ready in his drawer.
44. Kevin C. wrote I read the EO, and I see a lot of vague directives to various federal bureaucrats (and Fed bureaucrats are ~90% lefties).
Stop blackpilling.

Blogger Jack Amok May 29, 2020 2:46 PM  

One of the ways SJWs gain power is by causing problems until they get their way. In more civilized times, that behavior was kept under control by subjecting SJWs to physical consequences for engaging in it. In our post-civilized times, we don't do that, which gives SJWs an advantage.

Making it clear that there are consequences to companies that cave to the screaming banshees means those companies now have something they can throw back at the SJWs. "Sorry, can't comply, it would expose us to serious legal problems." As it is now, a CEO who isn't interested in anyone's agenda and just wants to make money is too easily held hostage by the outrage mob.

TGE is giving them cover. What looks like an attack is actually a sly way of saying he has the backs of anyone who ignores the calls to deplatform.

Blogger Jack Amok May 29, 2020 2:57 PM  

I pointed out that for hundreds of years, we've figured out how to allow common space and walled gardens to exist in the real world. Is it impossible to figure out how to achieve that on the internet?

Have we really figured out how to have common space and walled gardens in the real world? Well, of course we have, but that was before we started allowing Cancel-Culture people to engage in consequence-free attacks on any viewpoint they didn't like.

I'll just observe that anyone trying to have a real world walled garden of a men's-only club is subject to assault today. Right-wing speakers have their campus appearances disrupted. Would you park your car on a Portland street with a Trump2020 bumper sticker on it?

It's not an Internet vs IRL debate. It's a debate between Civilization and Who-Whom Politics.

Blogger Silly but True May 29, 2020 3:19 PM  

Trump's on a roll.

After first freezing US payments to the organization, then ordering the freeze permanent, he just severed ties with WHO this afternoon.

Blogger Zeroh Tollrants May 29, 2020 3:31 PM  

I guess Jack already made his decision, because the first thing he and his goons did after Trump signed this, was to censor his tweet.
That is way past slapping a "fact check" link.
Guess if he's serious about this, the ball is back in Trump's court.

Blogger Zeroh Tollrants May 29, 2020 3:33 PM  

Good grief, you're stupid.

Blogger Akulkis May 29, 2020 5:25 PM  

>> "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable"

> You can drive a Mac truck through that loophole. "Otherwise objectionable" is a catch-all and it is going to catch whatever they want it to catch and the courts are going to side with them.


1. When a court is dealing with a contract of attachment (Big organization gives individual a copy of the contract and says "take it or leave it" with no opportunity for the individual to negotiate terms), any egregiously lopsided terms favoring the party which drew up the contract as having of little to no legal weight. Enforcing such terms almost always blows up in the face of the large organization which drew up the contract.

Blogger John Bradley May 29, 2020 9:06 PM  

Good grief, you're stupid.

If you're just going to post a response to someone else's post, learn to quote whatever the hell it is you're responding to. Without some sort of context, your comment is meaningless noise.

Blogger Darren May 29, 2020 9:39 PM  

Trump and his team wrote it knowing eventually Outrage Twitter would eventually force Jack's minions to take the bait and cross the line...
Then he waited ...

Blogger Darren May 29, 2020 9:40 PM  

Youtube is mentioned by name in the actual verbiage of Trump's "you're all on notice" EO.

Blogger Darren May 29, 2020 9:42 PM  

The Samson Option -- digital version?

Blogger Darren May 29, 2020 9:43 PM  

Poetry.

Blogger OvergrownHobbit May 29, 2020 11:26 PM  

Again: Lawfare Lawfare Lawfare. If the right had focused even 1/100th of their "think tank" budget on lawfare instead of bow-ties it would have been done already.

But then Jonah Goldberg, at al. Would've had to learn to code.

Blogger Tars Tarkas May 30, 2020 10:09 AM  

Akulkis wrote:Enforcing such terms almost always blows up in the face of the large organization which drew up the contract.
But this is not a contract, it is a law. Outside of the federal bureaucracies, there is no part of the gov more converged than the courts.

Blogger By My Greybeard! May 30, 2020 4:49 PM  

@crescent wrench

Is there more than one Volokh lawer-fellow out in the tubes?

I stopped reading his blog a few months after GE took Oath of Office b/c of all the anti-Trump. Has Volokh tempered his over-the-top hysterically spinning bowtie?

I *really* liked his commentary: I learned a lot! I just couldn't face ulcer-producing pointless whinging.

Thank you, in advance, if you find time to answer.

Blogger Jandolin May 30, 2020 5:45 PM  

What was Trump doing the last four years? The evils of social media censorship dawns on Trumps six months before election.

Blogger Johnny May 31, 2020 1:53 AM  

Check out @55 and @57

Trump's EO is bad. Large companies like Twitter can easily squeeze out of these lawsuits by claiming that they're working in "good faith" to remove content that is: "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable". The Trump admin will have to prove they weren't working in "good faith" to remove the kind of content listed above.

Meanwhile smaller platforms will no longer be protected by 230. This might end up shutting down sites like 4chan or making them more heavily moderated by SJW's than Twitch.

Bad news. Hope it remains an EO and doesn't get put into law. There were better ways to take care of this like recognizing the internet as the new public square like some cases have already done. I hope this is only a pre-election stunt 6 months before the election and won't turn into law.

Blogger Akulkis May 31, 2020 1:41 PM  

"Trump's EO is bad. Large companies like Twitter can easily squeeze out of these lawsuits by claiming that they're working in "good faith" to remove content that is: "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable". The Trump admin will have to prove they weren't working in "good faith" to remove the kind of content listed above."

Except they don't remove the lewd and obscene, and all the rest is merely a matter of opinion, and not subject to any so-called exceptions to the First Amendment.

Blogger Akulkis May 31, 2020 1:42 PM  

"Meanwhile smaller platforms will no longer be protected by 230. This might end up shutting down sites like 4chan or making them more heavily moderated by SJW's than Twitch."

You're an idiot.

The EO doesn't demand more censorship. Just the opposite. Get a clue -- buy one if you have to.

Blogger Unknown November 02, 2020 9:54 AM  

I licked it, so it’s mine! Click here and Check me out i am getting naked here ;)

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts