Can Republicans show me the part of the Constitution that requires publishing?

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

CDA 230 is allowed, even if the intermediaries makes editorial decisions, and even requires a good faith attempt to track down illegal material. An example of the later is Kim Dotcom who hosted user content that violated copyright laws, and (allegedly) did not make a good faith effort to take it down.

Let's use JPP as an example. JPP can ban me based on their own editorial decisions, and keep CDA 230 protections. JPP is not liable if I post something wrong. But they are liable if they do not make a good faith effort to police their content.

rebekah jones is a totally unrelated scenario.

[Walt]

rebekah jones is a totally unrelated scenario.

Jones is the victim of real censorship. Hawley is the "victim" of a free press.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Jones is the victim of real censorship. Hawley is the "victim" of a free press.

right. banning off twitter and facebook is censorship. thanks for agreeing

[Walt]

right. banning off twitter and facebook is censorship. thanks for agreeing

Not censorship. I don't have to repeat your message.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Not censorship. I don't have to repeat your message.

I won. please refrain from more responses.

[LV426]

The people who claim this is 1984 and the people who have actually read 1984 are two circles that never overlap.

[LV426]

The best thing I've read about Hawley:

"Everything would seem Orwellian to a talking pig."

[danielpalos]

When someone supports abortion on demand, they're a hypocrite if they claim to have morals.

Yet, it is right wingers who seem to have more of a problem with an ounce of prevention while only complaining about a pound of cure. Only immoral right wingers complain about the taxes required for social services required for all of the kids who are naturally born. Job 34:30 must always be applied when the right wing is involved. It is one reason why I resort to the fewest fallacies.

[danielpalos]

right. banning off twitter and facebook is censorship. thanks for agreeing

banning individuals must also be censorship. thanks for letting right wingers know that.

[CFM]

Yet, it is right wingers who seem to have more of a problem with an ounce of prevention while only complaining about a pound of cure. Only immoral right wingers complain about the taxes required for social services required for all of the kids who are naturally born. Job 34:30 must always be applied when the right wing is involved. It is one reason why I resort to the fewest fallacies.

Since you lefties defend the woman's sole rite to make decisions with her body, whether she makes the choice to have an abortion or have the child, all costs fall on her. It's immoral for her or any of you bleeding hearts to expect others to fund a choice you say is none of our business and one in which we should but out.

[Jarod]

this case is more nuanced.

if you sell yourself as a platform, and seek 230 immunity from prosecution ever, you are now a platform.

rebekah jones is not in this category. and she should not have beeen harrased, however, you cannot use this case to justify Twitter and facebook censorship.

you are now experiencing propaganda failure. fall back and find a clue.

Nowhere does section 230 say one must allow access to their platform to everyone. In fact, I think the limits to the immunity would stop at a point when you allow access to someone who calls for armed insurrection, Promotes pedophilia, or other wise shocking and outrageous things.

[Phantasmal]

Since you lefties defend the woman's sole rite to make decisions with her body, whether she makes the choice to have an abortion or have the child, all costs fall on her. It's immoral for her or any of you bleeding hearts to expect others to fund a choice you say is none of our business and one in which we should but out.

And you make fun of my typos

[Jarod]

this case is more nuanced.

if you sell yourself as a platform, and seek 230 immunity from prosecution ever, you are now a platform.

rebekah jones is not in this category. and she should not have beeen harrased, however, you cannot use this case to justify Twitter and facebook censorship.

you are now experiencing propaganda failure. fall back and find a clue.

A bar is generally open to anyone over 21, but if you go in there and try to start fights, or encourage others to start fights, the bartender is within his rights to kick you out.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Darth,

Straw man Alter-Walter.

It can’t be a First Amendment issue because it doesn’t involve the government. Whether not it’s an antitrust issue is a different question. Wasn’t even Pocahontas advocating that that the Big Three be broken up?

Pocahontas died centuries ago.

[CFM]

And you make fun of my typos

No, I mocked weaklings like you that get your feelings hurt over the use of certain words.

You defend women having the sole choice of what to do with their bodies yet don't hold them accountable for the financial aspects of it.

Bottom line is if the woman chooses, she pays all the costs. That means if she can't, she and the baby can do without.