Twitter GAME OVER - Section 230 Communication Decency Act (Free Speech)

Politics
1

Free Speech, social media censoring, Twitter censoring

Censor

  1. A person who supervises conduct and morals: such as. a: an official who examines materials (such as publications or films) for objectionable matter.
    Gov Censors deleted all references to the protest.
    Twitter is censoring my free expression
    Facebook deleted my account because I was a conservative.

Section 230 a provision of the Communication Decency Act was enacted by U.S Congress in 1996 primarily in response to concerns about minors’ access to pornography via the internet.

In a nutshell, due to the amount of random questionable material uploaded to the internet many ISP’s (internet service providers) thought they would be in big trouble if someone uploaded the material using their access they provided. Likewise Wikipeadia felt because it’s site is fully a user run site where all of the pages are uploaded by users that Wikipedia feared questionable material Could be included in a Wikipedia page fear they would be held responsible. Today social media feared the same. So to prevent lawsuits where social media and the like would be put out of business early on the provision of section 230 gives these open platforms immunity from being sued for any questionable material in picture or word form. In other words the governments got your back social media sites.
Twitter & Facebook are both immune from punishment if a user uploads or types vulgar or porn or questionable material or racist comments onto these sites.

So, if they receive immunity why are the censoring peoples. And how are they allowed to get away with censoring? Censoring on an open forum is illegal isn’t it? A violation of my first amendment, my freedom of speech? My free expression?

If it’s not illegal for SM sites to censor how can we stop them?

ENTER: Section 230.
Trump will be looking at this provision to see what changes can be made so these SM giants will be held accountable for censoring peoples comments &/or tweets

These tech giants have gotten away with silencing conservatives long enough and something must legally be done about it.

Have you ever been silence by the tech giants? By the Social Media platforms like Twitter or Facebook?
How long did they suspend you for?

Would you be delighted to see your President do something about it?

Section 230 must be change so SM sites are held accountable.

What do you think?

For more info on Section 230 please do a search
Search Section 230.

Thank you.

Tell us what you think?

1 Like
3

Twitter, Facebook, Sean Hannity Forum, etc., are all privately owned social media sites. They can do whatever they want. We have no freedom of speech on privately owned platforms. This is called Capitalism. I know most conservatives claim that they are fans of the free market, but then posts like this show up from people claiming to be conservative. Lol

3 Likes
4

Please read the first amendment and then give us your thoughts on how it applies to private sector entities.

4 Likes
5

Good luck with that!

1 Like
6

Yes.

Also, they don’t know how anything works.

2 Likes
7

Some come running to the page in a blaze of glory ready to “inform” only to make foolish head first dives into empty pools

6 Likes
9

You must seize the means of production, comrade!

4 Likes
10

Relying on the CEC to do your thinking for you tends to result in this type of mass-confusion, victimization mentality. And with Mr. Giuliani, it is a self-completing circle of feeding the CEC loop, only to have it then fed right back to him. It is almost paradoxical.

12

Read the First Amendment again. Then tell us how that pertains to a private company.

1 Like
14

Thanks for the reply. I was speaking rhetorically?

When I said “censoring on an open forum is illegal isn’t it?”
And “A violation of my first Amendment, my freedom of speech? My free expression?”

These are questions that the reader might have so I say these questions for their benefit not mine.

I am the thoughts of the person reading in other words.
Not everyone knows as much as you or I?

I’m a songwriter so I say what the listener is thinking.

That why I wrote my post like I did.

Hope this helps.

Thanks for the reply.
Every reply is important.

15

You need to define what an “open forum” is, because none that you have listed are, they are all private.

16

Looks like Game Over for Twitter Game Over.

2 Likes
17

No knowledgeable reader would ask those questions.

1 Like
21

I agree no knowledgeable reader would ask those questions. But not everyone is as knowledgeable as you or I.

I doubt even 10% of the people in the U.S has even heard of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

I’m simply putting the word out.

That’s all.

Thank you for the reply.
Its an understandable reply.

23

After a cursory read, I think that 230 is about the liability of an Internet service provider or a website, and the liability depends largely on how active or passive the site is in how it distributes information.

One interesting point about it is that sites get broad protection from liability unless they give up that protection.

One way that a site can give up that protection is by promising to remove offensive content and then failing to remove it.

In other words, to get protections under 230, providers assume a duty to remove offensive content.

I’m not sure that 230 means what you think it means.

That was just a quick read, so I might be wrong. If Safiel or Worldwatcher knows more about it, I’m sure we’d all benefit from their input.

1 Like
24

Honestly, you should get onto the patreon issue. That’s far more impactful than how twitter ranks your posts.

25

I someone comes into another person’s house and starts spouting off objectionable things, is the homeowner allowed to tell them to leave?

26

They are allowed to whatever they wish with their property and no, censoring a forum, open or not, is not illegal. There is NO first amendment rights or free speech rights on private property.

1 Like
27

You’re correct. Thank you.

Open Discussion.
Public forum.

I meant a place or “space” on the net where people can come and have an open discussion about anything without the fear of their 1ST amendment being stepped on.

It should be noted that on May 23RD, 2018, a Federal court in NY held that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibited President Trump from blocking Twitter users solely based on those users expression of their political views.

In doing so, the court weighed in on the evolving debate over when an online forum qualifies as a “public forum”
entitled to special consideration under the First Amendment.

The district court concluded that
“the interactive space for replies and retweets created by each tweet sent by the @realDonaldTrump account” should be considered “A designated public forum” where the protections of the First Amendment apply.

This ruling is limited to the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account but implicates a number of larger legal issues, including when a social media account is operated by the government rather than by a private citizen, and when the government has opened up that social media account as a forum for private speech.
The ability of public officials to restrict private speech on Twitter may be of particular interest to Congress, given that almost all Members now regardless of their political side now have Twitter accounts.

The interesting thing to a lot of people is
Who’s running this show?
Twitter? Congress? The President? The People?
What say do the people all have in this?
Censoring? Is this a violation of my first Amendment on Twitter?
Why would I not be able to say whatever I want?
Are we all being protected equally?

Again last part rhetorical.

28

I’ll admit it is a bit tricky to understand.
Thanks

Here’s my in-depth understanding, the deal that the tech companies get from the government in this clause 230 says that they can’t be sued if something is randomly put on their site. There are simply far too many random uploads or tweets that no one could possibly catch them all.

So, as a safeguard the SM giants are protected.

Or given immunity so to speak.

Some are beginning to feel that this clause should be re-negotiated. Its part of the Nafta agreement.

Now a minor change to the wording of that treaty could protect tech companies that decide to censor any content they dislike, something that they are obviously very anxious to do.

Most are probably not aware of the clause in the Nafta Agreement that could have big impacts on the Big Tech companies. I am becoming more aware of it every day as the word gets out.

Ok so, it’s actually a deal that the tech companies get from the government that says that they can’t be sued like any other publisher, or sued like a newspaper, they can’t be sued like a TV station.

And supposedly what they’re “supposed” to do in return for that IMMUNITY is they’re not supposed to exercise editorial content or editorial control.

In other words they’re not supposed to say

“Well you can’t express this political view or Not”

These companies are increasingly censoring conservatives they are censoring based on political Viewpoint and even though Liberals dislike Conservatives, everyone’s question regardless of party should be… should they really be getting this special immunity from the government if they’re also going to act like censors?

We need to take a hard look at that.

These Tech giants and SM sites have these immunities but why should the U.S Government favor those companies in a way that allows them to censor free speech and not be sued IF they’re going to abuse their power and censor people because “THEY” feel these people “conservatives” don’t fit “THEIR” political view.

I personally do not feel that’s fair. To anyone regardless of party.
I mean what if in the future somewhere they started censoring more Democrats and a conservative decided to be a Democrat but finds out Democrats are now censored.

I liked Obama, I didn’t have much against Obama. I do now to some extent. But it’s my own personal dilemma. I know more than I did then. But I’m alright. But what if one day I want to vote for a Democrat and Twitter starts censoring Democrats for some reason. ? Who knows why?

I feel the same way if Liberals or Conservatives were being censored. Its wrong.

We should all be able to say what we feel.

These tech companies Facebook Google Twitter they have gotten huge they have gotten powerful they have gotten rich on the backs of this special immunity that they get from the federal government.

They are monopolies now they’re very powerful they appear to be using their power to try and shut down political viewpoints that they don’t agree with, usually conservative and so do they really deserve these special deals that have allowed them to get so big and so rich?

Its been going on for the last decade and basically no one in the entire Senate has ever said anything about it.

Maybe people don’t realize that these tech companies have gotten such a sweetheart deal from the federal government, that they get treated unlike anybody else, that there are different from TV stations and Publishers and do they really deserve to get this special deal if they’re going to act like sensors we need to ask those hard questions.

I don’t take kindly to the big & the powerful not being held accountable especially if they misuse their Monopoly power.