Don’t think that’s such a good example for you.
Klayman v. Zuckerberg is about Larry Klayman complaining that Facebook didn’t ban someone else fast enough.
Without information or ideas being exchanged there are no eyeballs to monetize.
And without TV shows, the same would be true about TV.
But that does not obligate ABC to show your home videos.
2 Likes
The observation of the court was that even though the tech platform exercised the traditional editorial functions of a publisher, the statute banned any court action to seek to hold the tech platform liable for said editorial action. So it doesn’t matter if they were sued for banning, or not banning. The statute, as written, gives them immunity from any liability for exercising traditional publisher functions. Deciding who to ban, or not to ban, is in essence deciding who to publish, and who not to publish.
No, but ABC can be held accountable for the content of what it publishes. Networks have been sued many times for injuries caused by their reporting.
That’s not quite what the court “observed” - but not entirely inaccurate.
The problem is demonstrating how (outside the context of defamation), editorial functions could open a social media platform to liability at all.
Yes. That’s the whole point of the law. That is its intended purpose.
Outside of defamation?
Please, give me an example of what you’re talking about.
Probably then cloture is a better-fitting term for it.
1 Like
They may drive those 2 right into the GOP.
Have Republicans?
Yes, the vote to cut off the filibuster failed because they needed 60 and only had 55.
Do you really need to have this explained to you?
1 Like
Are you serious? Of course they used it. Had they not, Cruz’s Bill would have passed 55/45. Instead, because the Democrats used the filibuster, the Bill failed.
2 Likes
Apparently someone at CNN thought she already switched parties. 
4 Likes
Wrong. If they were interested in governing, the filibuster would not be an impediment.
Well, no. They didn’t invoke the filibuster per se, but 60 votes are required for cloture.
CNN. How appropriate. 
Same difference.
No . . .
Perhaps, but the filibuster was not invoked.
Cloture is like assuming a filibuster will happen, so you have to pre-empt it.
But to say Cruz’s bill was filibustered is not accurate.
1 Like
Without the filibuster rule, his Bill would have passed. The rest is just semantics.
