Must be some of that sheople regurgitbleet. 
1 Like
DougBH
22
I would not make them strictly liable for what was said, but if they clearly show a pattern of editing content based on ideology, then they are essentially approving of some statements by allowing them.
I would modify 230 to state that if a court was convinced that the tech was serving as an editor, then they could be responsible.
The telephone company doesnât rush in to âfact checkâ your opinions.
What do you mean by âserving as an editorâ?
This site is moderated. Does that count? Should Sean Hannity be legally responsible for posts made here?
2 Likes
Response from President Trump: âBig Tech was mean to me so Iâm not going to pay our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airman, and Spacemen.â
There you go @wonderingrover.
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS
3 Likes
Iâm fascinated by Trumpâs claim that his inability to sue Twitter for defamation is somehow a ânational securityâ issue.
2 Likes
Do you want Sean to be responsible for the things said here? Lies from liberals about conservatives by name and lies from conservatives about liberals by name?
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS
DougBH
28
If every slander against Trump is allowed while criticism of Biden is blocked, on a consistent basis, then the editor is saying something about Trump. Leave it to the court to decide if this becomes the techs representation based on all the facts.
There is no law preventing the injured suing the offender.
This is about suing providers of internet sites, not the offender.
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS
sikofit
30
That simply isnât happening. Stop listening to the rhetoric
1 Like
So if Mod here edit, delete or are shown allow some types of âconservativeâ speech while suppressing âliberalâ speech, then Sean can be held accountable for that?
You realize this is a social media site right?
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS
1 Like
âLetting the Court decideâ is itself removing the protection.
Again - should I be able to sue Sean Hannity if someone here posts defamatory content? Should Sean Hannity have to pay his legal team to defend against any spurious claims?
DougBH
33
I will trust the court to decide, more than a blanket âyou can do anything you wantâ. If our courts canât do that, how can they be trusted with anything?
sikofit
34
Excellent question that wonât get addressed by those who have a problem with 230.
So do you want activist judges setting the law in stead of Congress and the Legislatures?
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS
sikofit
36
Didnât they just spend 4 years arguing the exact opposite?
The purpose of the law is to protect sites like this one from having to endlessly defend themselves in court due to content posted by users.
âLetting the courts decideâ is the status quo that existed before 230.
Courts decide tos?
Yayy letâs eliminate the arbitration clause.
Oh darn the court already ruled to right to contract by parties and click through agreements.
The Supreme Court at that.
Letâs overturn arbitration clauses and Iâll get on the barricades with you regarding subsection c of 230
1 Like
Agreed but we are the only ones playing by such reasonable rules. Where has it gotten us?
DougBH
40
Well, yesâŚthat is similar to what I am saying. But does the current rule allow for grievous misuse of 230 to result in a change of status?
Only a scorched earth response to progs will have an impact.