Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 190

Thread: Federal Court Smacks Down Social Media Platform Censorship

  1. #91 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    41,796
    Thanks
    26,777
    Thanked 19,968 Times in 14,555 Posts
    Groans
    1,422
    Groaned 949 Times in 933 Posts
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    You want government to hold people accountable for their views? Facism personified. This is what scared people into voting against Trump in 2020--wanting an oppressive government to regulate political views.

    Our free speech rights don't require us to express views we don't agree with or spread false information. There are an unlimited number of message boards and other social media for people to express their views. They don't have a constitutional right to say anything they want on any platform they choose.

    Your free speech protects you against government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by social media. Now, you want government to be able to impose those restrictions on private business. So, nobody's constitutional free speech is being restricted by social media.
    White House ‘flagging’ posts for Facebook to censor over COVID ‘misinformation’

    White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Thursday the Biden administration is identifying “problematic” posts for Facebook to censor because they contain “misinformation” about COVID-19.

    Psaki disclosed the government’s role in policing social media during her daily press briefing after Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called on companies to purge more pandemic posts.
    IMPEACH 46 FOR TREASON
    Biden/Harris 2024
    IT'S A NO BRAINER!


  2. The Following User Says Thank You to ExpressLane For This Post:

    Matt Dillon (10-01-2022)

  3. #92 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ExpressLane View Post
    White House ‘flagging’ posts for Facebook to censor over COVID ‘misinformation’

    White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Thursday the Biden administration is identifying “problematic” posts for Facebook to censor because they contain “misinformation” about COVID-19.

    Psaki disclosed the government’s role in policing social media during her daily press briefing after Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called on companies to purge more pandemic posts.
    Facebook should have the freedom to remove any information they choose. They are not "censoring" it because that same information is available on thousands of other sources.

    We do not need government telling Facebook what it can and cannot display on its site. Government cannot require you to express views you find objectionable--that is free speech.

    If you don't think you can find sources that present false COVID information (YouTube), then you haven't looked. It is available-Facebook should not be forced to display it.

    Thankfully, we have the 1st Amendment to protect that free speech from those who want government repression.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    McRocket (10-01-2022), ThatOwlWoman (10-01-2022)

  5. #93 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    38,029
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 18,918 Times in 13,188 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 829 Times in 788 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Facebook should have the freedom to remove any information they choose. They are not "censoring" it because that same information is available on thousands of other sources.

    We do not need government telling Facebook what it can and cannot display on its site. Government cannot require you to express views you find objectionable--that is free speech.

    If you don't think you can find sources that present false COVID information (YouTube), then you haven't looked. It is available-Facebook should not be forced to display it.

    Thankfully, we have the 1st Amendment to protect that free speech from those who want government repression.
    What do you think of the Democrats trying to restore the Equal Time rule?

    https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/art...qual-time-rule

  6. #94 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    What do you think of the Democrats trying to restore the Equal Time rule?

    https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/art...qual-time-rule
    I don't know. Probably because they don't like Fox News or the media attention Trump gets. I don't know much about it.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    McRocket (10-01-2022)

  8. #95 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    41,796
    Thanks
    26,777
    Thanked 19,968 Times in 14,555 Posts
    Groans
    1,422
    Groaned 949 Times in 933 Posts
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Facebook should have the freedom to remove any information they choose. They are not "censoring" it because that same information is available on thousands of other sources.

    We do not need government telling Facebook what it can and cannot display on its site. Government cannot require you to express views you find objectionable--that is free speech.

    If you don't think you can find sources that present false COVID information (YouTube), then you haven't looked. It is available-Facebook should not be forced to display it.

    Thankfully, we have the 1st Amendment to protect that free speech from those who want government repression.
    True but the White House should not be telling them who they want censored. That is fascism
    IMPEACH 46 FOR TREASON
    Biden/Harris 2024
    IT'S A NO BRAINER!


  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ExpressLane For This Post:

    Bigdog (10-01-2022), Matt Dillon (10-01-2022)

  10. #96 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    28,688
    Thanks
    26,423
    Thanked 14,244 Times in 9,790 Posts
    Groans
    563
    Groaned 606 Times in 573 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Facebook should have the freedom to remove any information they choose. They are not "censoring" it because that same information is available on thousands of other sources.

    We do not need government telling Facebook what it can and cannot display on its site. Government cannot require you to express views you find objectionable--that is free speech.

    If you don't think you can find sources that present false COVID information (YouTube), then you haven't looked. It is available-Facebook should not be forced to display it.

    Thankfully, we have the 1st Amendment to protect that free speech from those who want government repression.
    No, this speaks to section 230 special immunity for mega corps. That removed the peasants' rights to sue them.

    " CompuServe and Prodigy, which were early service providers at that time.[19] CompuServe stated it would not attempt to regulate what users posted on its services, while Prodigy had employed a team of moderators to validate content. Both companies faced legal challenges related to content posted by their users. In Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., CompuServe was found not be at fault as, by its stance as allowing all content to go unmoderated, it was a distributor and thus not liable for libelous content posted by users. However, in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., the court concluded that because Prodigy had taken an editorial role with regard to customer content, it was a publisher and was legally responsible for libel committed by its customers.[20][b]"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
    "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
    — Joe Biden on Obama.

    Socialism is just the modern word for monarchy.

    D.C. has become a Guild System with an hierarchy and line of accession much like the Royal Court or priestly classes.

    Private citizens are perfectly able of doing a better job without "apprenticing".

  11. #97 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    23,501
    Thanks
    3,062
    Thanked 9,759 Times in 7,263 Posts
    Groans
    49
    Groaned 1,060 Times in 1,005 Posts

    Default

    Social media are platforms owned by their parent companies.

    I don't see how "free speech" should even apply to them.

    Nobody needs to be free to speak on somebody else's forum.

    Our real problem is that so many Amerians are horrifically stupid enough to think that "social media" are anything remotely important.

    People who consider time spent on social media to be anything but a passing amusement are unnecessary people who don't need to exist.
    Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Samuel Johnson, 1775
    Religion....is the opiate of the people. Karl Marx, 1848
    Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose. Kris Kristofferson, 1969

  12. #98 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ExpressLane View Post
    True but the White House should not be telling them who they want censored. That is fascism
    They can ignore the White House. Under fascism the government can control the media. Facebook doesn't listen to anybody.

  13. #99 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigdog View Post
    No, this speaks to section 230 special immunity for mega corps. That removed the peasants' rights to sue them.

    " CompuServe and Prodigy, which were early service providers at that time.[19] CompuServe stated it would not attempt to regulate what users posted on its services, while Prodigy had employed a team of moderators to validate content. Both companies faced legal challenges related to content posted by their users. In Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., CompuServe was found not be at fault as, by its stance as allowing all content to go unmoderated, it was a distributor and thus not liable for libelous content posted by users. However, in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., the court concluded that because Prodigy had taken an editorial role with regard to customer content, it was a publisher and was legally responsible for libel committed by its customers.[20][b]"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
    Terrible decision. If a platform serves the purpose of allowing customers to express free speech the platform should not be sued for those comments. Maybe the current Supreme Court would allow more free speech rights or modify libel laws. Do those same regulations apply to JPP.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    Bigdog (10-01-2022)

  15. #100 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    28,688
    Thanks
    26,423
    Thanked 14,244 Times in 9,790 Posts
    Groans
    563
    Groaned 606 Times in 573 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Terrible decision. If a platform serves the purpose of allowing customers to express free speech the platform should not be sued for those comments. Maybe the current Supreme Court would allow more free speech rights or modify libel laws. Do those same regulations apply to JPP.
    Even worse, they snuck it in disguised as the Communications Decency Act.

    "The anti-indecency portion of the CDA was immediately challenged on passage, resulting in the Supreme Court 1997 case, Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, that ruled all of the anti-indecency sections of the CDA were unconstitutional, but left Section 230 as law."

    I think it applies to JPP. Which is why the Texas law exempts sites with less than 50 million users.
    "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
    — Joe Biden on Obama.

    Socialism is just the modern word for monarchy.

    D.C. has become a Guild System with an hierarchy and line of accession much like the Royal Court or priestly classes.

    Private citizens are perfectly able of doing a better job without "apprenticing".

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Bigdog For This Post:

    Matt Dillon (10-01-2022)

  17. #101 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    28,688
    Thanks
    26,423
    Thanked 14,244 Times in 9,790 Posts
    Groans
    563
    Groaned 606 Times in 573 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    They can ignore the White House. Under fascism the government can control the media. Facebook doesn't listen to anybody.
    I disagree. They were threatened with the abolishment or revision of Sec 230 if they did not comply with the FBI and the Dems.
    "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
    — Joe Biden on Obama.

    Socialism is just the modern word for monarchy.

    D.C. has become a Guild System with an hierarchy and line of accession much like the Royal Court or priestly classes.

    Private citizens are perfectly able of doing a better job without "apprenticing".

  18. #102 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigdog View Post
    I disagree. They were threatened with the abolishment or revision of Sec 230 if they did not comply with the FBI and the Dems.
    What does the FBI have to do with it?

    Threats don't mean they can successfully repeal it. I don't think a majority of either party would support it.

  19. #103 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    88,265
    Thanks
    145,659
    Thanked 82,492 Times in 52,722 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 4,657 Times in 4,376 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Facebook should have the freedom to remove any information they choose. They are not "censoring" it because that same information is available on thousands of other sources.

    We do not need government telling Facebook what it can and cannot display on its site. Government cannot require you to express views you find objectionable--that is free speech.

    If you don't think you can find sources that present false COVID information (YouTube), then you haven't looked. It is available-Facebook should not be forced to display it.

    Thankfully, we have the 1st Amendment to protect that free speech from those who want government repression.
    I have noticed that some only support the First Amendment when the topic is something they agree with. Otherwise it's fine if FB, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, etc. "censor" content that violates their TOS.
    "Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals." -- Mark Twain

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to ThatOwlWoman For This Post:

    Flash (10-01-2022)

  21. #104 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    28,688
    Thanks
    26,423
    Thanked 14,244 Times in 9,790 Posts
    Groans
    563
    Groaned 606 Times in 573 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    What does the FBI have to do with it?

    Threats don't mean they can successfully repeal it. I don't think a majority of either party would support it.
    Well, Pelosi would never let a bill get to the floor so we could find out.


    "Zuckerberg tells Rogan FBI warning prompted Biden laptop ...https://www.bbc.com › world-us-canada-62688532
    Aug 26, 2022 — Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook restricting a story about Joe Biden's son during the 2020 election was based on FBI misinformation warnings."


    "Trump and Biden agree on something – changing Section 230https://www.theregister.com › 2022/09/09 › biden_tech...
    Sep 9, 2022 — During his 2020 campaign, Biden told The New York Times in an interview, "...Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, ..."


    "Politico
    White House renews call to 'remove' Section 230 liability shield
    Too much 230: President Joe Biden had previously called for revoking the liability shield, which allows platforms to disseminate content without...
    .3 weeks ago"
    "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
    — Joe Biden on Obama.

    Socialism is just the modern word for monarchy.

    D.C. has become a Guild System with an hierarchy and line of accession much like the Royal Court or priestly classes.

    Private citizens are perfectly able of doing a better job without "apprenticing".

  22. #105 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    30,555
    Thanks
    18,195
    Thanked 15,614 Times in 10,679 Posts
    Groans
    202
    Groaned 617 Times in 606 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ExpressLane View Post
    White House ‘flagging’ posts for Facebook to censor over COVID ‘misinformation’

    White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Thursday the Biden administration is identifying “problematic” posts for Facebook to censor because they contain “misinformation” about COVID-19.

    Psaki disclosed the government’s role in policing social media during her daily press briefing after Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called on companies to purge more pandemic posts.
    BROWNSHIRTS AT IT AGAIN...AND NOW WE KNOW NEARLY EVERYTHING WE WERE TOLD ABOUT COVID WAS LIES.....
    TRUMP WILL TAKE FORTY STATES...UNLESS THE SAME IDIOTS WHO BROUGHT US THE 2020 DUNCE-O-CRAT IOWA CLUSTERFUCK CONTINUE THEIR SEDITIOUS ACTIVITIES...THEN HE WILL WIN EVEN MORE ..UNLESS THE RED CHINESE AND DNC COLLUDE, USE A PANDEMIC, AND THEN THE DEMOCRATS VIOLATE ARTICLE II OF THE CONSTITUTION, TO FACILLITATE MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL, UNVETTED, MAIL IN BALLOTS IN THE DARK OF NIGHT..


    De Oppresso Liber

Similar Threads

  1. Supreme Court blocks Texas law on social media ‘censorship’
    By Guno צְבִי in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-31-2022, 06:48 PM
  2. Supreme Court Smacks trump Down Again
    By Althea in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-19-2022, 06:37 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-06-2021, 10:47 AM
  4. Replies: 38
    Last Post: 06-03-2021, 07:09 AM
  5. Mr Trump to launch his own Social Media Platform...GREAT NEWS ??
    By cordeela in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 03-23-2021, 10:43 AM

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
  •