When did opening up defamation liability become such a doctrinal right-wing position?
Don’t worry, I know the answer.
2 Likes
Thank you for declaring this so openly, I suspect it is the opinion of most Trump supporters but few say it this directly.
The problem with your scorched earth response is that it has burned conservative principles, the GOP, and the democratic process. You advocate for becoming the very thing you claim to be vehemently against.
1 Like
Doesn’t matter. One does not not normally fill their own house with poison either. But when vermin and insects have infested one’s house, you poison the creatures.
Who needs principles!
Those who have the luxury to keep them. The constitution is not a suicide pact.
Thanks for admitting what everyone already knew. That it was all just a facade
You are changing my words. I said it was a luxury. You said I admitted it was a facade. Please correct your dishonest post.
Classic Trumpism “I want others to live by the principles that I refuse to adhere to.”
Principles are feelings and beliefs that you stand behind no matter what, not when it’s convenient
You know he wears a diaper by how angey it made him…
#PresidentPoopyPants needs to be the next trend…
1 Like
I think a Trump should go for it and watch what happens.
You poor “reasonable people”…such stoic victims you have been until your righteous anger has been stoked.
I refuse to let vermin scum use my civic principles against me. My higher principles that delineate between right and wrong will instead prevail.
It’s nothing more than civil disobedience to the nth power.
Facebook is in good shape, then. Half my feed is people posting negative stuff about Biden and Obama while praising Trump at the same time
People’s “evidence” for social media being hostile to conservatives…CEC people tell them so.
Its so funny. If 230 was terminated RIGHT now - The biggest company that would freak is Parlor.
If suddenly Parlor could be held responsible for every post and could be sued for defamation from any post made by anyone about anyone else -
Man - They would be burried in lawsuits immediately.
1 Like
There seems to be confusion about 230. It doesn’t guarantee “Fairness”
in fact -There is still nothing that would stop a company like twitter or facebook from censoring anything. They could even censor “1 side” if they wanted to. 230 is not the fairness doctrine.
Newspaper, Magazines, TV stations- They can all be biased and they dont have 230 protecting them. CNN isnt covered by 230 but Conservatives think they are “unfair” and 1 sided. But if CNN allows a on air personality to slander someone with something they know is a lie for the sole purpose of harming them - CNN could get sued (I know - You all think that happens now. So go ahead and sue them).
Remove 230 and if someone posts a lie about me for the sole purpose to slander me on facebook, I can now sue facebook.
This will lead to MORE censorship, not less.
2 Likes
As much as it pains me to partially agree with DT, I voted yes on this, but for a different reason. Section 230 is being used as a shield for web-sites that have no purpose other than to allow people a forum for character assassination and slander. I don’t mean FB, Twitter, etc. I mean “shesahomewrecker.com” and several others of a similar vein, which are managed through a single company that engages in threats and intimidation to smack down anyone who tries to salvage their name and reputation, and refuses to to takedowns even if the OP requests it. They are abusing 230, and the Courts are allowing it because Congress won’t act.
So I would amend 230 to provide coverage for social media that have responsible editorial policies, with means to redress grievances and requests for takedowns. So it would still include all of Trumps enemy list as protected, because they do have such policies.
I think this is Trump asking for the sky, knowing he’ll never get it, while getting what he really wants, which is a reformed law that allows us to control these publishers disguised as open forums, and remove their protections when they start imposing their political will on people using their services.
They have plenty of censorship…or none…depending on whom you are.
If they are going to allow certain slanders but ban others, they are editors. They are deciding whom you can say bad things about.
They have become participants.
Whether in a particular case it was egregious enough to make them liable, that is for a court to decide, just as it is for magazines, newspapers etc. who also edit their content.
Facebook ditches racially neutral approach to policing hate speech | Fox Business
And because of that business risk, you would have no more Facebook, or Twitter, or Parler, or the Sean Hannity Forum, that allow open participation.
1 Like
