Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: GOP wants special protections for republican trolls on internet

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    State of Bliss
    Posts
    31,007
    Thanks
    7,095
    Thanked 5,196 Times in 3,829 Posts
    Groans
    433
    Groaned 261 Times in 257 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Werewolf GOP wants special protections for republican trolls on internet

    Hate speech, threats vile name calling, harassment



    Republican state lawmakers are pushing for social media giants to face costly lawsuits for policing content on their websites, taking aim at a federal law that prevents internet companies from being sued for removing posts.

    GOP politicians in roughly two dozen states have introduced bills that would allow for civil lawsuits against platforms for what they call the “censorship” of posts. Many protest the deletion of political and religious statements, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Democrats, who also have called for greater scrutiny of big tech, are sponsoring the same measures in at least two states.

    The federal liability shield has long been a target of former President Donald Trump and other Republicans, whose complaints about Silicon Valley stifling conservative viewpoints were amplified when the companies cracked down on misleading posts about the 2020 election.

    Twitter and Facebook, which are often criticized for opaque policing policies, took the additional step of silencing Trump on their platforms after the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Twitter has banned him, while a semi-independent panel is reviewing Facebook's indefinite suspension of his account and considering whether to reinstate access.

    Experts argue the legislative proposals are doomed to fail while the federal law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, is in place. They said state lawmakers are wading into unconstitutional territory by trying to interfere with the editorial policies of private companies.

    Len Niehoff, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, described the idea as a “constitutional non-starter.”

    “If an online platform wants to have a policy that it will delete certain kinds of tweets, delete certain kinds of users, forbid certain kinds of content, that is in the exercise of their right as a information distributer," he said. “And the idea that you would create a cause of action that would allow people to sue when that happens is deeply problematic under the First Amendment.”

    The bills vary slightly but many allow for civil lawsuits if a social media user is censored over posts having to do with politics or religion, with some proposals allowing for damages of $75,000 for each blocked post. They would apply to companies with millions of users and carve out exemptions for posts that call for violence, entice criminal acts or other similar conduct.

    The sponsor of Oklahoma's version, Republican state Sen. Rob Standridge, said social media posts are being unjustly censored and that people should have a way to challenge the platforms' actions given their powerful place in American discourse. His bill passed committee in late February on a 5-3 vote, with Democrats opposed.

    “This just gives citizens recourse,” he said, adding that the companies “can't abuse that immunity” given to them through federal law.

    Part of a broad, 1996 federal law on telecoms, Section 230 generally exempts internet companies from being sued over what users post on their sites. The statute, which was meant to promote growth of the internet, exempts websites from being sued for removing content deemed to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable" as long as the companies are acting in “good faith.”

    More about undermining America @ source
    "There is no question former President Trump bears moral responsibility. His supporters stormed the Capitol because of the unhinged falsehoods he shouted into the world’s largest megaphone," McConnell wrote. "His behavior during and after the chaos was also unconscionable, from attacking Vice President Mike Pence during the riot to praising the criminals after it ended."



  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    40,213
    Thanks
    14,475
    Thanked 23,679 Times in 16,485 Posts
    Groans
    23
    Groaned 585 Times in 561 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill View Post
    Hate speech, threats vile name calling, harassment



    Republican state lawmakers are pushing for social media giants to face costly lawsuits for policing content on their websites, taking aim at a federal law that prevents internet companies from being sued for removing posts.

    GOP politicians in roughly two dozen states have introduced bills that would allow for civil lawsuits against platforms for what they call the “censorship” of posts. Many protest the deletion of political and religious statements, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Democrats, who also have called for greater scrutiny of big tech, are sponsoring the same measures in at least two states.

    The federal liability shield has long been a target of former President Donald Trump and other Republicans, whose complaints about Silicon Valley stifling conservative viewpoints were amplified when the companies cracked down on misleading posts about the 2020 election.

    Twitter and Facebook, which are often criticized for opaque policing policies, took the additional step of silencing Trump on their platforms after the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Twitter has banned him, while a semi-independent panel is reviewing Facebook's indefinite suspension of his account and considering whether to reinstate access.

    Experts argue the legislative proposals are doomed to fail while the federal law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, is in place. They said state lawmakers are wading into unconstitutional territory by trying to interfere with the editorial policies of private companies.

    Len Niehoff, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, described the idea as a “constitutional non-starter.”

    “If an online platform wants to have a policy that it will delete certain kinds of tweets, delete certain kinds of users, forbid certain kinds of content, that is in the exercise of their right as a information distributer," he said. “And the idea that you would create a cause of action that would allow people to sue when that happens is deeply problematic under the First Amendment.”

    The bills vary slightly but many allow for civil lawsuits if a social media user is censored over posts having to do with politics or religion, with some proposals allowing for damages of $75,000 for each blocked post. They would apply to companies with millions of users and carve out exemptions for posts that call for violence, entice criminal acts or other similar conduct.

    The sponsor of Oklahoma's version, Republican state Sen. Rob Standridge, said social media posts are being unjustly censored and that people should have a way to challenge the platforms' actions given their powerful place in American discourse. His bill passed committee in late February on a 5-3 vote, with Democrats opposed.

    “This just gives citizens recourse,” he said, adding that the companies “can't abuse that immunity” given to them through federal law.

    Part of a broad, 1996 federal law on telecoms, Section 230 generally exempts internet companies from being sued over what users post on their sites. The statute, which was meant to promote growth of the internet, exempts websites from being sued for removing content deemed to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable" as long as the companies are acting in “good faith.”

    More about undermining America @ source
    "Experts argue the legislative proposals are doomed to fail while the federal law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, is in place. They said state lawmakers are wading into unconstitutional territory by trying to interfere with the editorial policies of private companies." Kind of cracks me up when anyone on the left brings up anything "unconstitutional".

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Prairieville
    Posts
    27,356
    Thanks
    2,896
    Thanked 10,626 Times in 7,127 Posts
    Groans
    331
    Groaned 2,985 Times in 2,707 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill View Post
    Hate speech, threats vile name calling, harassment



    Republican state lawmakers are pushing for social media giants to face costly lawsuits for policing content on their websites, taking aim at a federal law that prevents internet companies from being sued for removing posts.

    GOP politicians in roughly two dozen states have introduced bills that would allow for civil lawsuits against platforms for what they call the “censorship” of posts. Many protest the deletion of political and religious statements, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Democrats, who also have called for greater scrutiny of big tech, are sponsoring the same measures in at least two states.

    The federal liability shield has long been a target of former President Donald Trump and other Republicans, whose complaints about Silicon Valley stifling conservative viewpoints were amplified when the companies cracked down on misleading posts about the 2020 election.

    Twitter and Facebook, which are often criticized for opaque policing policies, took the additional step of silencing Trump on their platforms after the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Twitter has banned him, while a semi-independent panel is reviewing Facebook's indefinite suspension of his account and considering whether to reinstate access.

    Experts argue the legislative proposals are doomed to fail while the federal law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, is in place. They said state lawmakers are wading into unconstitutional territory by trying to interfere with the editorial policies of private companies.

    Len Niehoff, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, described the idea as a “constitutional non-starter.”

    “If an online platform wants to have a policy that it will delete certain kinds of tweets, delete certain kinds of users, forbid certain kinds of content, that is in the exercise of their right as a information distributer," he said. “And the idea that you would create a cause of action that would allow people to sue when that happens is deeply problematic under the First Amendment.”

    The bills vary slightly but many allow for civil lawsuits if a social media user is censored over posts having to do with politics or religion, with some proposals allowing for damages of $75,000 for each blocked post. They would apply to companies with millions of users and carve out exemptions for posts that call for violence, entice criminal acts or other similar conduct.

    The sponsor of Oklahoma's version, Republican state Sen. Rob Standridge, said social media posts are being unjustly censored and that people should have a way to challenge the platforms' actions given their powerful place in American discourse. His bill passed committee in late February on a 5-3 vote, with Democrats opposed.

    “This just gives citizens recourse,” he said, adding that the companies “can't abuse that immunity” given to them through federal law.

    Part of a broad, 1996 federal law on telecoms, Section 230 generally exempts internet companies from being sued over what users post on their sites. The statute, which was meant to promote growth of the internet, exempts websites from being sued for removing content deemed to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable" as long as the companies are acting in “good faith.”

    More about undermining America @ source
    It will be my solemn honor and pleasure to pound as many nails into the Republican coffin as I can. This shall be my lifelong goal.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to katzgar For This Post:

    Guno צְבִי (03-07-2021)

  5. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    32,827
    Thanks
    19,711
    Thanked 9,447 Times in 7,737 Posts
    Groans
    835
    Groaned 509 Times in 502 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by katzgar View Post
    It will be my solemn honor and pleasure to pound as many nails into the Republican coffin as I can. This shall be my lifelong goal.
    You will die an absolute failure.

    Bitch! You couldn't drive a nail anyway! I bet it takes you 20+ whacks to get done with 1 16p nail, bitch!

    Your dumbass talking about driving nails=


  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Matt Dillon For This Post:

    Sailor (03-07-2021)

Similar Threads

  1. 10 Types of Internet Trolls You'll Meet Online
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-21-2020, 05:22 AM
  2. How Trolls Are Ruining the Internet
    By Seahawk in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 08-19-2016, 01:54 PM
  3. the truth about internet trolls??
    By SmarterthanYou in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-18-2014, 11:25 AM
  4. Hope for internet \trolls/
    By Cancel 2018. 3 in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-13-2012, 06:56 PM
  5. OT: Internet Trolls
    By cawacko in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-02-2010, 01:23 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •