No record of a court being willing to give standing to hear a case.
One would think that approach would get tiresome as it’s becoming the new don’t cry wolf.
1 Like
Do you have evidence that a lawsuit was filed…
Several have been filed. And they get dismissed because of the broad immunity under section 230.
Here is one: Klayman v. Mark Zuckerberg & Facebook, Inc.
Trump is suing them right now, challenging the immunity in section 230, but past challenges of 230, as written, go against his suit.
For which, 60 votes are required, right ?
And fundamentally, that is why 60 votes are needed to pass most legislation in the Senate, correct ?
1 Like
If you can get 60 out of 100 to agree to hold the final vote, it is pretty likely that you will get at least 51 votes to pass. That is why the procedural vote (ending debate) and the passage vote are usually held within minutes of each other. But the Senate can also vote to end debate because the opposition is strong enough to know that a majority will vote for non-passage. This is usually done to humiliate the minority party, like when the Green New Deal was put to a vote and all the Dem Senators voted against it after claiming they supported it.
2 Likes
Point being that if filibuster rule were not in place, a bill that has 55 “aye” votes would obviously pass every single time. Ergo, filibuster rule prevented Mr. Cruz’s bill from passing.
1 Like
Nice.
Tom Watson - B.A., Columbia University
Imagine that.
3 Likes
Correct.
1 Like
So it wasn’t bad enough to follow her into the bathroom. I saw that some ACLU connected individual interpreted her emotion during the floor speech as the harassment is “breaking” her. I hope these idiots keep right on going at her and Manchin. I suspect the 2 are so insulted and pissed off that they aren’t even listening anymore.
3 Likes
TRUMP DIVIDES US!
Amazing…
2 Likes
Next they will accuse her of a secret crush on Orange Man.
Lolol
Did you read that case? It literally supports everything I said. Thank you.
I like this gem…
**B. Doestheplaintiffseektoholdthedefendantsliableaspublishersorspeakersof information published by another information content provider?
As another court has observed, when examining a plaintiff’s claims through the lens of the CDA, courts must ask whether the alleged conduct “derives from the defendant’s status or conduct as a publisher or speaker. If it does, [§] 230(c)(1) precludes liability.” Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir. 1997) (“[L]awsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher’s traditional editorial functions . . . are barred.”). Although this Circuit has not examined the definition of the word “publisher” within the meaning of the CDA, other courts have construed the term as referring to one who “review[s], edit[s], and decid[es] whether to publish or to withdraw from publication third-party content.”**
If I read this correctly, they concluded that Facebook IS a publisher of information and therefore they ARE protected under 230.
1 Like
Not sure why you are celebrating. We all agree that the law allows the tech platforms to exercise the traditional editorial functions of a publisher, while barring any lawsuit to hold the tech company liable for the outcome of exercising that traditional function. What we are all saying is that these tech platforms should face the same liability for their actions that other publishers face.
1 Like
its actually very knowable, when they had the opportunity to do so they rejected it out of hand. one or two r senators may have given it lip service, the rest were firm no’s
which would appear to be a clear case of a denial of an enumerated right, the right to seek redress of grievances.
Calling it a ‘filibuster’ is lazy corporate reporting, and politicians are fine with that. It lets Cruz, or Klobuchar, pretend that failing to get the votes according to current (arbitrary and changeable) rules is being actively opposed.
The reason Biden cannot pass election reform is because he doesn’t have the votes, according to rules that don’t hold for the House, or the Ohio State legislature, or the Bridgeport City Council. Same for Cruz’s attempt to sanction a Russian business. But, no one is standing up, killing procedural time, blocking the vote itself.
2 Likes
No, captain, my reply is simple, and the same: you are po-mo torching the meaning of ‘censorship’ because people who cannot stop themselves from saying and typing their ugly thoughts in public have been banned from private platforms.
1 Like
This is incorrect. Fundementally.
The business of every social media platform out there is selling ads and/or selling data.
1 Like
No. This isn’t accurate either.
A banned user cannot take a social media platform to court due to them being banned because being banned from Twitter is not a cognizance claim, and Twitter is protected by the First Amendment, too.
Section 230 - in reality - applies only in the context of defamation.
1 Like
