You have no RIGHT to post on JPP, social media, or anywhere else that you did not cre

[AProudLefty]

There's currently a petition circulating to persuade Facebook not ban the term ' Zionist '. I'm in two minds, as I've always considered it a dirty word myself.

I don't consider it to be anti Semite.

[moon]

I don't consider it to be anti Semite.

Me neither. Definitely anti-Palestinian though.

[Walt]

Section 230 allows this capricious banning -it has to stop -it's squashing political speech

No, Section 230 has nothing to do with allowing, or disallowing banning. It is about who gets sued if someone posts something.

It is the US Constitution that allows capricious banning. It is called freedom of the press, and it allows the owner of a press (or a website) to publish (or not publish) whatever they want. They can do it for "capricious" reasons, or even just plain wrong reasons. The government does not have a say in what they publish, or do not publish.

[Walt]

ADL threatened a lawsuit within a month of me starting my new site, and it's a darkweb site. These fucking nazis aren't kidding about shutting free speech down.

The ADL rarely has lawsuits. How would they threaten you if you had a darknet site? It would be impossible to track you down. You story does not make sense. I am calling it a lie.

[cordeela]

You leftie idiots have no concept of truth. You drop in a thought connived in your head and expect your twisted reasoning to be taken seriously.

[Underdog]

Listening to all the right-wing noise about being “censored “ from posting on social media platforms they did not create just gets dumber by the hour. No one has a right to post on any platform at any time. Posting is granted based on your adherence to terms of use, and anyone can be banned from posting for as long as the platform creators choose to ban you if you choose to ignore the terms that granted you access.

One would think this concept would be pretty simple and easy to understand, but it isn’t for people who cannot figure out how voting machines and elections work. They’d rather whine like babies and feign butt-hurt insult than simply adhere to the rules. They’d rather claim they have no other way to communicate unless platform owners give them access to users that they themselves did not gather. And they believe they have a right to say whatever they want to say under the guise of “freedom of speech” while they take no responsibility for the guidelines that the owners must follow.

Those making such claims are ignorant babies and should be ignored.

I disagree to a degree...


twitter gets federal subsidies and tax breaks. given that they are recipients of corporate welfare and given the government also directly invests in twitter it should be treated as a public-private company meaning the 1st amendment should indeed apply to twitter.

[Into the Night]

Section 230 allows this capricious banning -it has to stop -it's squashing political speech

No, it doesn't. But it could be adjusted to do so.

Not gonna happen with the current oligarchy in Washington DC.

[Into the Night]

dont waste my time. selective banning is acting like a publisher controlling content
Section 230 give protection from lawsuits because of that -yet the capricious banning remains

Section 230 offers no protection from slander. Users canceled and locked by these idiot for posting 'riot inciting speech' have been slandered. They could conceivably sue these guys. Section 230 won't protect them.
Section 230 does not protect them from contract law violations, including applying their term of service unequally among users. Amazon walked into this one big time.

The Fake News media is trying to tell you that the Parler suit against Amazon is thrown out. It's not. It's still pending. The only thing that was thrown out was the injunction order request.

[Into the Night]

Can you tell me how the likes of Ayotollah Khamenei are allowed on Twitter whilst Trump was cancelled?

Simple. The terms of service of Twitter are applied with bias. Oh, lawsuits over this are possible. Section 230 doesn't protect them from this kind of lawsuit.

[Into the Night]

No, Section 230 has nothing to do with allowing, or disallowing banning. It is about who gets sued if someone posts something.

It is the US Constitution that allows capricious banning. It is called freedom of the press, and it allows the owner of a press (or a website) to publish (or not publish) whatever they want. They can do it for "capricious" reasons, or even just plain wrong reasons. The government does not have a say in what they publish, or do not publish.

Actually, it does.

The first amendment does not prohibit the federal government from passing laws requiring reasonably equal treatment of web site users. It DOES prohibit the federal government from passing laws restricting speech.
Of course, the federal government is now the OWDC, and no longer recognizes the Constitution of the United States.

[Into the Night]

I'm in two minds.

You and your sock?

[AProudLefty]

The ADL rarely has lawsuits. How would they threaten you if you had a darknet site? It would be impossible to track you down. You story does not make sense. I am calling it a lie.

LOL yeah. It's an odd claim.

[AProudLefty]

Into the Night
Verified User

This message is hidden because Into the Night is on your ignore list.


Ahhhhhh feels good man.

[ThatOwlWoman]

I am currently in the middle of a 30 day ban from facebook because I called Ted Cruz a fake christian pig. That must mean I am a conservative, since according to fox and trump and the clowns who believe their shit, conservatives are the only ones ever banned.

Good for you. I got a 24-hour FB ban a couple of months ago for telling a woman who stalked my profile, on a local news FB page site, to quit posting hateful comments on the only two things that FB makes you keep public... your profile pic and your cover photo. I called her a stalking whore... but SHE wasn't given a time-out for going to my profile to attack, rather than addressing my comments publicly.

I still get several of these personal profile comments, or PM messages from them, weekly whenever I post comments on either local or national news organization's FB sites. Reichwingers are childish, nasty, stupid people, many of them.

[ThatOwlWoman]

No, Section 230 has nothing to do with allowing, or disallowing banning. It is about who gets sued if someone posts something.

It is the US Constitution that allows capricious banning. It is called freedom of the press, and it allows the owner of a press (or a website) to publish (or not publish) whatever they want. They can do it for "capricious" reasons, or even just plain wrong reasons. The government does not have a say in what they publish, or do not publish.

This is one of the most excellent summations of the First Amendment I've seen for a long time. Thank you.