yes it did
1 Like
Emphasis mine
This is not what the republicans wanted to do. The wanted to restrict the speech of a private company to expand user access to that companies IP.
No it didn’t. Twitter even says so.
This is argyle-bargle. Freedom of speech necessarily includes the inverse, as well - compelled speech isn’t “free.” Twitter/Facebook/Etc don’t owe you a platform.
complete ■■■■■■■■■ They wanted the companies to stop restricting the speech of conservitives on what has become a public conveyance of speech.
nobody was compelling them to say anything, just to stop restricting other people from saying anything. The speech is not theirs… which of course is the entire point of sec 230
A “chilling effect” is a test. By all means, go ahead.
of course they say so, they are one of the conspiritors
In every legal way, definitionally, everything posted to Twitter is Twitter’s speech.
The point of Section 230 is to limit their liability for that speech.
If Twitter is in on it, how could they have been coerced?
stick to real estate.
No, its not their speech, sec 230 shields them from liability for other people’s speech. If it was or became their speech once posted, they would be a publisher and sec 230 would not apply.
1 Like
what a completely asinine post. You don’t think co conspiritors can be coerced? Of course they can. The actions they take in furtherance of the conspiracy may be mitigated by the level of coersion, but it is not excused.
You’re not following.
Legally, every post published on Twitter is Twitter’s speech.
Without Section 230, they could be held liable, as the speaker, for anything posted on Twitter, by anyone.
that would be the point of sec 230, its not their speech. Its their platform. if they took ownership of the speech (sans sec 230), they would be a publisher.
The point of Section 230 is resolve that particular legal conflict - it doesn’t redefine speech.
How about reading the opinion of the court in the subject case? Such as paragraph 19 where Facebook is told that they must do more to stop misinformation and disinformation, and then linked “the threat of a robust anti trust program”.
2 Likes
I skimmed it (I read the law parts).
I hope the 5th upholds it, that would be fun.
You might try the facts parts too. Sometimes they are relevant.
3 Likes
Government is - of the people, by the people and for the people.
Use “Biden administration” instead of “government” and you’d make more sense. We the people had nothing to do with their lawless decisions.
1 Like
