Trump Vows To Veto Defense Bill Unless Section 230 is Terminated

[hindsight]

@sikofit

@JayJay

@Smyrna

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW…or have “we” already forgotten this?

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

OK?

And?

Seriously. That post made no sense

Must be some of that sheople regurgitbleet.

[DougBH]

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 doesn’t rush in to “fact check” your opinions.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@DougBH

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.

What do you mean by “serving as an editor”?

This site is moderated. Does that count? Should Sean Hannity be legally responsible for posts made here?

[WorldWatcher]

@wonderingrover

If I were in congress, I believe I would tell him to go pound sand.

Then, if he vetoes it, he can explain to the American people why he vetoed a defense bill.

Response from President Trump: “Big Tech was mean to me so I’m not going to pay our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airman, and Spacemen.”

There you go @wonderingrover.
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS

[TheDoctorIsIn]

I’m fascinated by Trump’s claim that his inability to sue Twitter for defamation is somehow a “national security” issue.

[WorldWatcher]

@Smyrna

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW…or have “we” already forgotten this?

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

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]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@DougBH

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.

What do you mean by “serving as an editor”?

This site is moderated. Does that count? Should Sean Hannity be legally responsible for posts made here?

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.

[WorldWatcher]

@Smyrna

@sikofit

What law is being broken?

Any law where the injured can not sue the offender.

There is no law preventing the injured suing the offender.

This is about suing providers of internet sites, not the offender.
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS

[sikofit]

@DougBH

If every slander against Trump is allowed while criticism of Biden is blocked, on a consistent basis,

That simply isn’t happening. Stop listening to the rhetoric

[WorldWatcher]

@DougBH

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 doesn’t rush in to “fact check” your opinions.

So if Mod here edit, delete or are shown allow some types of “conservative” speech while suppressing “liberal” speech, then Sean can be held accountable for that?

You realize this is a social media site right?
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS

[TheDoctorIsIn]

“Letting the Court decide” 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]

I will trust the court to decide, more than a blanket “you can do anything you want”. If our courts can’t do that, how can they be trusted with anything?

[sikofit]

@TheDoctorIsIn

“Letting the Court decide” 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?

Excellent question that won’t get addressed by those who have a problem with 230.

[WorldWatcher]

@DougBH

I will trust the court to decide, more than a blanket “you can do anything you want”. If our courts can’t do that, how can they be trusted with anything?

So do you want activist judges setting the law in stead of Congress and the Legislatures?
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS

[sikofit]

@WorldWatcher

@DougBH

I will trust the court to decide, more than a blanket “you can do anything you want”. If our courts can’t do that, how can they be trusted with anything?

So do you want activist judges setting the law in stead of Congress and the Legislatures?
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS

Didn’t they just spend 4 years arguing the exact opposite?

[TheDoctorIsIn]

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.

“Letting the courts decide” is the status quo that existed before 230.

[FreeAndClear]

@DougBH

I will trust the court to decide, more than a blanket “you can do anything you want”. If our courts can’t do that, how can they be trusted with anything?

Courts decide tos?

Yayy let’s 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.

Let’s overturn arbitration clauses and I’ll get on the barricades with you regarding subsection c of 230

[Call_me_Ishmael]

@WuWei

No, it should not be repealed.
No, it should not be vetoed. They are unrelated.

If it is warranted, violators should have their status changed to remove 230 protections.

Agreed but we are the only ones playing by such reasonable rules. Where has it gotten us?

[DougBH]

@Call_me_Ishmael

@WuWei

No, it should not be repealed.
No, it should not be vetoed. They are unrelated.

If it is warranted, violators should have their status changed to remove 230 protections.

Agreed but we are the only ones playing by such reasonable rules. Where has it gotten us?

Well, yes…that 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?

[Call_me_Ishmael]

Only a scorched earth response to progs will have an impact.