-->
@fauxlaw
The first amendment absolutely gives companies like Twitter the right to censor content on their platform.
Parler, the conservative version of twitter, should have been banned by big tech
Posts
Total:
167
-->
@n8nrgmi
If Twitter has some terrorism on its site, Twitter is not responsible. Parler is a platform, so people can say whatever they want on it.
What did Parler say that was terrorism? Most of what they say isn’t terrorism.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Specifically, people calling for the murder of government officials or the overthrow of democracy.
Calling for the killing of murderers is free speech.
Calling for the killing of rapists is free speech.
Calling for the death of pedophilles is free speech.
Calling for the death of thieves, while an extremely unpopular idea, is free speech nonetheless.
Calling for anyone to be killed, as long as you don’t kill them or claim that you will kill them, is protected by the first amendment since it gives you the right to hate someone to the point of wishing them dead.
They want companies to be able free to do what they want. They want the free market to decide.
The free market means customers. They can choose to buy Parler or not. The option shouldn’t be taken away.
-->
@n8nrgmi
AMAZON canceling your web hosting without notice is like your electric company cutting power to your house because they don't like what you said over the phone.
-->
@3RU7AL
Amazon is backtracking a little now because they know they would lose in court.
-->
@ethang5
Amazon is backtracking a little now because they know they would lose in court.
Citation please.
-->
@TheUnderdog
They can choose to buy Parler or not.
Good point.
-->
@drafterman
The first amendment absolutely gives companies like Twitter the right to censor content on their platform.
Correct.
The first amendment only stops THE GOVERNMENT from forcing people to say or not say specific things.
A company can make up whatever rules (regarding speech) they want.
-->
@3RU7AL
A company can make up whatever rules (regarding speech) they want.
Certain companies can, namely publishers. PragerU can only host conservatives. CNN can host only liberals. Publishers have the right to allow any views they want. Also, if a publisher says something wrong, it can be sued.
Twitter on the other hand is a platform. If something false is displayed on Twitter, you can’t sue Twitter for it. But Twitter has to let it be up there.
Twitter can be a platform or a publisher and they have to be consistent. If they want to be a platform, they have to allow ANYBODY to post what they want to post on the site. If they wish to be a publisher, they can be sued for inaccurate claims. Twitter can’t be both. DART can’t be both. Both sites have to pick.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Twitter can’t be both.
Apparently they can.
Section 230 does not make "moderation" impossible.
Capricious & Tyrannical "moderation" is fully compliant with Section 230.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Calling for anyone to be killed, as long as you don’t kill them or claim that you will kill them, is protected by the first amendment since it gives you the right to hate someone to the point of wishing them dead.
sedition is not protected speech. Calling for an attack on the US capitol and/or the murder of congressmen/senators because they won't overturn the results of an election is sedition.
They want companies to be able free to do what they want. They want the free market to decide.The free market means customers. They can choose to buy Parler or not. The option shouldn’t be taken away.
The free market means companies have the power to do what they need to do in order to appeal to their customers. If they aren't allowed to do what their customers want, then that isn't a free market. These companies know that allowing their platforms to be used by terrorists, traitors and murders is highly damaging to their brand. Since parlor is allowing these horrible people to spread lies and violence, Google and the other platforms had every reason to take down their app.
But i understand. Conservatives love to pretend they have actual convictions right up to the point those convictions are inconvenient and then they quickly shit all over those same convictions they pretended to have.
-->
@HistoryBuff
These companies know that allowing their platforms to be used by terrorists, traitors and murders is highly damaging to their brand.
Shouldn't we cut the phones, water, and electricity to all accused criminals?
Shouldn't VW, Toyota, GM, and Ford be able to disable their vehicles if they're being used by accused criminals?
THE ENTIRE POINT OF SECTION 230 IS TO MAKE THE INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR WORDS AND NOT THE HOST.
-->
@Danielle
ANTIFA are the ones who caused a scene except that brave woman Ashli Babbitt who got shot dead. She wasn't ANTIFA but everyone else was. And all the other patriots that are promising to riot again in defense of Trump all over social media are also ANTIFA. See the media won't tell you that.
PROTESTER = TERRORIST
-->
@Greyparrot
the boot-on-the-face can go on indefinitely seems doubtful.
hOWeVer,
The vague threat of (community) "boot-on-the-face" can go on forever.
5 MONKEYS EXPERIMENT,
SLAVERY WITH EXTRA STEPS,
-->
@3RU7AL
Shouldn't we cut the phones, water, and electricity to all accused criminals?
are criminals using water and electricity to spread treason and sedition? I don't think so.
Shouldn't VW, Toyota, GM, and Ford be able to disable their vehicles if they're being used by accused criminals?
again, cars aren't being used to spread treason. Parlor is.
THE ENTIRE POINT OF SECTION 230 IS TO MAKE THE INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR WORDS AND NOT THE HOST.
why are you bringing up section 230? This isn't a government rule or law. This is exactly what the right has always said they want. The free market making decisions. It has decided sedition is bad. It has decided not to allow their products to be used to spread sedition. You got exactly what you asked for.
-->
@HistoryBuff
again, cars aren't being used to spread treason. Parlor is.
I'm pretty certain at least some of the evil parler users also drive evil automobiles.
-->
@HistoryBuff
THE ENTIRE POINT OF SECTION 230 IS TO MAKE THE INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR WORDS AND NOT THE HOST.why are you bringing up section 230? This isn't a government rule or law. This is exactly what the right has always said they want. The free market making decisions. It has decided sedition is bad. It has decided not to allow their products to be used to spread sedition. You got exactly what you asked for.
Let's see.
Would you call the picture of Kathy Griffin holding up the severed head of the sitting president "sedition"?
-->
@HistoryBuff
are criminals using water and electricity to spread treason and sedition? I don't think so.
I'm pretty certain at least some of the evil parler users also use evil water and evil electricity.
-->
@drafterman
The first amendment absolutely gives companies like Twitter the right to censor content on their platform.
Show me.
-->
@fauxlaw
Inherent in the freedom to do something is the freedom to choose not to do something as well. The first amendment also contains an implicit freedom of association that has been upheld by the courts.
The sum result of these two is groups and organizations and voluntarily associate with each other and also decline to associate with each other.
Forcing Twitter to accept a member to its user base would violate this.
Note that the lawsuit against Trump blocking people on Twitter was a lawsuit against Trump, specifically, not Twitter the platform.
There have been attempts to sue Twitter (and others) for being blocked, and none have succeeded. Notably Laura Loomer, Charles Johnson, Jared Taylor, Craig Brittain, Robert Wilson. So far no attempts to claim First Amendment protection against Twitter (a non-government agency) have succeeded.
-->
@drafterman
Forcing Twitter to accept a member to its user base would violate this.
Presumably unless that blocked person happened to be a member of a "protected class".
-->
@drafterman
freedom of association
Well, you'd best do better research, because the freedom of association does not have a 100% SCOTUS success rate in favor of your claim. It goes both ways. Start with https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1594/freedom-of-association, but continue from there. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. In particular, the Court frowns on censure of political speech. Section 230 does not stipulate that an internet service provider, such as Twitter, can unilaterally ban a user from posting anything, but only their objectionable content, determined "in good faith." As it is, Trump posting "Roses are red, violets are blue." is banned, when that content is not at all objectionable "in good faith." Same goes for Parler being banned from having a platform at all.
-->
@fauxlaw
Well, you'd best do better research, because the freedom of association does not have a 100% SCOTUS success rate in favor of your claim.
Perhaps, but in this specific context, the favor is in Twitter being able to ban people.
It goes both ways. Start with https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1594/freedom-of-association, but continue from there. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. Section 230 does not stipulate that an internet service provider, such as Twitter, can unilaterally ban a user from posting anything, but only their objectionable content, determined "in good faith." As it is, Trump posting "Roses are red, violets are blue." is banned, when that content is not at all objectionable "in good faith." Same goes for Parler being banned from having a platform at all.
Show me
-->
@drafterman
Forcing Twitter to accept a member to its user base would violate this.
So you say, but section 230 does not allow an internet service provider, Twitter, from banning a member, period, but only that member's in-good-faith determined content. So, banning one post, yes, but all posts by that member? No. Not unless the ISp can demonstrate that all posts are in-good-faith objectionable. Even then, it is post by post decisions, not a unilateral banning decision. Have you read section 230, or just depended on what others say? Do your own research.
-->
@fauxlaw
This has nothing to do with Section 230. If I sign up for a service that says I am not allowed to use the word "blue" and I use the word "blue", they can ban me.
-->
@drafterman
Show me
I did. Read my #84, also mentioned in my #82. Section 230. Read it. I have to remind a mod to research?? Really?
-->
@drafterman
I use the word "blue", they can ban me.
Haven't read section 230, have you? It stipulates removing CONTENT, not the USER. All your posts in which you say "orange" must be allowed to stand.
-->
@fauxlaw
I have only ever been talking about the banning of users.
-->
@fauxlaw
Even then, it is post by post decisions, not a unilateral banning decision.
Good point.
-->
@drafterman
I realize that. Section 230 is relevant because it speaks to eliminating content, but NoT users. Yet you argue for banning users unilaterally, when section 230 prohibits it. Therefore, it is relevant to the discussion because we are talking about banning Parler, specifically, and Trump in general. All without the proper interpreting of the 1A, freedom of association be damned. Were talking political speech, after all, and your SCOTUS is particularly lenient on that score, contrary to your claim.