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

Jezcoe · 2019-04-03T13:53:46.411Z

zantax:

Our government.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20Bqyv7XCOo

A congressman asking twitter to get a hold of the deliberate spreading of misinformation is not a call for deplatforming,.

Every thing that Alex Jones is experiencing right now is a direct result of his actions.

It is time for he and his defenders to take responsibility instead of throwing around blame as to why they are awful.

zantax · 2019-04-03T13:55:25.731Z

Yes, yes, it’s not censorship if the government pressures private companies to censor, I already know your position.

Maybe we need a ministry of truth.

BlueTex · 2019-04-03T13:57:17.427Z

zantax:

Yes, yes, it’s not censorship if the government pressures private companies to censor, I already know your position.

Maybe we need a ministry of truth.

Doesn’t Sarah Sanders head our ministry of truth?

zantax · 2019-04-03T13:59:15.241Z

Is she pressuring companies into banning speech she doesn’t like and succeeding?

Excast · 2019-04-03T13:59:15.443Z

zantax:

Is this where we pretend they enforce their TOS equally without regard to whether they happen to agree with the users political stripe or content?

I think all forums/social media should be forced to allow as vile of racist, ugly content as people can come up with. What are your feelings on the matter?

Jezcoe · 2019-04-03T14:00:39.392Z

zantax:

Yes, yes, it’s not censorship if the government pressures private companies to censor, I already know your position.

Maybe we need a ministry of truth.

Can the US request that Twitter monitor and derank content that is used to recruit people for terrorist groups?

Is that a violation of the first amendment?

zantax · 2019-04-03T14:00:42.658Z

My position on the matter is, government has no business deciding which speech is or is not acceptable. Because when you give them the power to quell speech you don’t like or agree with, it also applies to speech you do. The first amendment doesn’t exist to protect popular speech.

Jezcoe · 2019-04-03T14:02:28.180Z

zantax:

My position on the matter is, government has no business deciding which speech is or is not acceptable. Because when you give them the power to quell speech you don’t like or agree with, it also applies to speech you do. The first amendment doesn’t exist to protect popular speech.

We have gone from the government forcing platforms to carry everything to what you typed above,

The two just don’t jive.

dantes · 2019-04-03T14:05:20.793Z

And now the government is pressuring private companies to promote Alex Jones.

Yippie!

zantax · 2019-04-03T14:11:54.909Z

The government should promote free speech, it’s a founding principle of this nation.

Jezcoe · 2019-04-03T14:15:35.938Z

zantax:

The government should promote free speech, it’s a founding principle of this nation.

Should Twitter be forced to carry content that is used to promote terrorist groups?

Excast · 2019-04-03T14:18:13.907Z

zantax:

The government should promote free speech, it’s a founding principle of this nation.

Does this forum promote free speech?

zantax · 2019-04-03T14:21:48.923Z

No, they should not be forced to carry illegal or criminal speech, stupid question.

Jezcoe · 2019-04-03T14:23:48.402Z

zantax:

No, they should not be forced to carry illegal or criminal speech, stupid question.

Who says that it is illegal content?

One doesn’t have to make illegal content to promote terrorism.

So… should Twitter be forced to carry that non illegal content that promote terrorism?

zantax · 2019-04-03T14:56:57.905Z

Section 230 has shielded them from criminal liability for exactly that.

See Fields V Twitter

Jezcoe · 2019-04-03T14:58:18.600Z

zantax:

Section 230 has shielded them from criminal liability for exactly that.

See Fields V Twitter

Not talking about criminal liability.

Should they be forced to carry that content?

zantax · 2019-04-03T15:15:08.267Z

If it doesn’t cross over into illegality, sure. The patriot acts material support clause is kind of broad though, so they had better be real careful.

Jezcoe · 2019-04-03T15:17:29.767Z

zantax:

If it doesn’t cross over into illegality, sure. The patriot acts material support clause is kind of broad though, so they had better be real careful.

So… that is a yes.

The government should force Twitter to carry content that is legal but is used to promote terrorism.

Good to know.

zantax · 2019-04-03T15:21:38.658Z

Define “promotes terrorism” for us. Is “I support Palestinians fighting back against Israel” supporting terrorism? How about, “911 was blowback for our Middle Eastern Policies”?

Jezcoe · 2019-04-03T15:24:53.987Z

zantax:

Define “promotes terrorism” for us. Is “I support Palestinians fighting back against Israel” supporting terrorism? How about, “911 was blowback for our Middle Eastern Policies”?

Wait.

Now it is conditional?

Why is that?