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

W

Walt

Back To Reality
Republicans have recently claimed that the Constitution allows the government to force publishers to publish things. The publishers also have to pay politician book authors large amounts of money for these books.

I always thought one of the freedoms of the press was the freedom not to publish something. If a book publisher does not want to publish a book, they are free to not publish the book. They do have to pay the contractual obligations, but not the full advance. Likewise, Twitter does not have to publish trump's anti-American tweets.

There are more possible internet addresses than there are atoms in the universe. You want to setup your own servers, go ahead and do it.

Data scientist Rebekah Jones did just that. First Republicans tried to get her deplatformed, but she had her own server. Then they tried to get internet service cutoff to her home, but could not do that legally. Finally, they sent police into her home to threaten her family, and steal her server... And she bought new server. A server costs less than a thousand dollars.
 
Walt said:
Republicans have recently claimed that the Constitution allows the government to force publishers to publish things. The publishers also have to pay politician book authors large amounts of money for these books.

I always thought one of the freedoms of the press was the freedom not to publish something. If a book publisher does not want to publish a book, they are free to not publish the book. They do have to pay the contractual obligations, but not the full advance. Likewise, Twitter does not have to publish trump's anti-American tweets.

There are more possible internet addresses than there are atoms in the universe. You want to setup your own servers, go ahead and do it.

Data scientist Rebekah Jones did just that. First Republicans tried to get her deplatformed, but she had her own server. Then they tried to get internet service cutoff to her home, but could not do that legally. Finally, they sent police into her home to threaten her family, and steal her server... And she bought new server. A server costs less than a thousand dollars.
Click to expand...

^^^Has no understanding of the actual free speech issues at hand, and has no interest in understanding.^^^
 
Walt said:
Republicans have recently claimed that the Constitution allows the government to force publishers to publish things. The publishers also have to pay politician book authors large amounts of money for these books.

I always thought one of the freedoms of the press was the freedom not to publish something. If a book publisher does not want to publish a book, they are free to not publish the book. They do have to pay the contractual obligations, but not the full advance. Likewise, Twitter does not have to publish trump's anti-American tweets.

There are more possible internet addresses than there are atoms in the universe. You want to setup your own servers, go ahead and do it.

Data scientist Rebekah Jones did just that. First Republicans tried to get her deplatformed, but she had her own server. Then they tried to get internet service cutoff to her home, but could not do that legally. Finally, they sent police into her home to threaten her family, and steal her server... And she bought new server. A server costs less than a thousand dollars.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Walt said:
Republicans have recently claimed that the Constitution allows the government to force publishers to publish things. The publishers also have to pay politician book authors large amounts of money for these books.

I always thought one of the freedoms of the press was the freedom not to publish something. If a book publisher does not want to publish a book, they are free to not publish the book. They do have to pay the contractual obligations, but not the full advance. Likewise, Twitter does not have to publish trump's anti-American tweets.

There are more possible internet addresses than there are atoms in the universe. You want to setup your own servers, go ahead and do it.

Data scientist Rebekah Jones did just that. First Republicans tried to get her deplatformed, but she had her own server. Then they tried to get internet service cutoff to her home, but could not do that legally. Finally, they sent police into her home to threaten her family, and steal her server... And she bought new server. A server costs less than a thousand dollars.
Click to expand...

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?
 
AssHatZombie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Walt said:
Republicans have recently claimed that the Constitution allows the government to force publishers to publish things. The publishers also have to pay politician book authors large amounts of money for these books.

I always thought one of the freedoms of the press was the freedom not to publish something. If a book publisher does not want to publish a book, they are free to not publish the book. They do have to pay the contractual obligations, but not the full advance. Likewise, Twitter does not have to publish trump's anti-American tweets.

There are more possible internet addresses than there are atoms in the universe. You want to setup your own servers, go ahead and do it.

Data scientist Rebekah Jones did just that. First Republicans tried to get her deplatformed, but she had her own server. Then they tried to get internet service cutoff to her home, but could not do that legally. Finally, they sent police into her home to threaten her family, and steal her server... And she bought new server. A server costs less than a thousand dollars.
Click to expand...

same clause that protects wedding cakes......
 
Walt said:
Republicans have recently claimed that the Constitution allows the government to force publishers to publish things. The publishers also have to pay politician book authors large amounts of money for these books.

I always thought one of the freedoms of the press was the freedom not to publish something. If a book publisher does not want to publish a book, they are free to not publish the book. They do have to pay the contractual obligations, but not the full advance. Likewise, Twitter does not have to publish trump's anti-American tweets.

There are more possible internet addresses than there are atoms in the universe. You want to setup your own servers, go ahead and do it.

Data scientist Rebekah Jones did just that. First Republicans tried to get her deplatformed, but she had her own server. Then they tried to get internet service cutoff to her home, but could not do that legally. Finally, they sent police into her home to threaten her family, and steal her server... And she bought new server. A server costs less than a thousand dollars.
Click to expand...

It's just after the clause that Democrats claim has the terms "food stamps", "healthcare", "marriage", and "abortion".
 
Walt said:
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.
Click to expand...

I said "more strict than the government". you are defending "the same strictness as government".

try again fuckidiot.
 
Darth Omar said:
Whether not it’s an antitrust issue is a different question. Wasn’t even Pocahontas advocating that that the Big Three be broken up?
Click to expand...

Antitrust is not going to get trump back on twitter. It certainly will not get Hawley a book deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top