James Woods Is Back On Twitter

Dailywire ^ | FEBRUARY 7TH, 2020

[semimojo]

Not you specifically, but the body of people represented by your views...

So let's say you're the 60 Minutes producer. How do you decide whether I represent the views of my body of peeps?

Can you turn anyone down?

[DouglasKC]

The email said that Woods was suspended for: “Violating our rules against abusive behavior. You may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so. We consider abusive behavior an attempt to harass, intimidate, or silence someone else’s voice.”

Every leftist on Twitter does this to President Trump.

[TigersEye]

It was from Jack Dorsey the owner of twitter.

[Nifster]

He had come back from that time out. Got disgusted with the nuts on the left and signed off

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

CBS, and other MSM are publishers. They create or select the content & are responsible for it. Twitter was a common carrier — they carried content without being responsible for it. By censoring content they don't like, Twitter has (IMHO) become a publisher, and could be liable for the content. IMHO,big fat law suits are inevitable.

[semimojo]

By censoring content they don't like, Twitter has (IMHO) become a publisher, and could be liable for the content.

The problem is current law explicitly gives them protection when they moderate content.

What you're arguing for would prevent Jim from zotting people.

I've yet to hear a principled argument that would keep Twitter or Facebook from limiting certain content but would allow FR to function as it does.

You can make up some arbitrary rule based on number of users, but it's just that, an arbitrary rule, not a principle.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

It's a matter of degree. You say "moderate content", banning a contributor goes well beyond moderation -- beyond censorship even. If you ban some contributes, because you don't approve of their message; the corollary is that you approve of the messaging by the remaining contributors.

Acting as a common carrier, Twitter would carry all messages, as the telephone companies do. By banning some contributors, and not others, Twitter is acting as a publisher, selecting it's (unpaid) editorial staff.

The principle is simple: publishers exercise control over content, or content creators & that control makes them liable for the content. It's just a question of degree -- above some unknown (by anyone but the judge) threshold of control, they become publishers, and assume liability for content.

[independentmind]

Woods has a wicked sense of humor.

Glad to read this.

[semimojo]

You say "moderate content", banning a contributor goes well beyond moderation -- beyond censorship even. If you ban some contributes, because you don't approve of their message; the corollary is that you approve of the messaging by the remaining contributors....

You realize this is what Jim does on a regular basis, right?

The principle is simple: publishers exercise control over content, or content creators & that control makes them liable for the content. It's just a question of degree.

And what's the degree that let's us regulate Twitter and not Free Republic?

[DiogenesLamp]

You can make up some arbitrary rule based on number of users, but it's just that, an arbitrary rule, not a principle.

I think this is erroneous. People like their answers in black or white, and they have difficulty dealing with shades of gray. You find that in the real world especially in physics, boundaries are fuzzy and not clear, but yet the principles involved can be straightforward.

As we know from nuclear science, it is impossible to predict the point at which a specific atom will undergo fission, but collectively we can predict what the group will do quite accurately. Much of physics regarding the location and energy of particles deals with a "probability cloud" rather than absolutely accurate values.

The principles used in juggling these "fuzzy" factors are not invalid simply because it's so hard to accurately read the existing values. They are still valid principles even when the edges are fuzzy.

"We the People" are a body, not individuals. Trying to look at problems on the individual level will give you a false comprehension of how the overall system operates. You literally get stuck being unable to see the forest because you are too focused on individual trees.

My standard is "significance" and "threat potential." Just as it's difficult to accurately pin down some specific number regarding market penetration constituting "monopoly" so too is it difficult to say this value or that value will constitute an existential threat to the nation through control of communications.

We are in the area of "fuzzy logic", meaning the parameters are not easily definable.

I may not be able to give you precise numbers, but the probability cloud informs me that if we continue allowing censorous control of mass communications, the end result will be the loss of all our freedoms from the creation of a totalitarian state.

[semimojo]

My standard is "significance" and "threat potential." Just as it's difficult to accurately pin down some specific number regarding market penetration constituting "monopoly" so too is it difficult to say this value or that value will constitute an existential threat to the nation through control of communications.

That sounds good but we're a nation of laws.

Laws have to be clearly defined and unambiguous.

You're describing something akin to "common sense" which is a horrible standard to use when wielding the power of the state.

Can you name another area where the laws are as fuzzy as what you're advocating?

[DiogenesLamp]

Laws have to be clearly defined and unambiguous.

A task at which many of them fail. This is why it sometimes takes lawyers and judges years to "interpret" a law.

Can you name another area where the laws are as fuzzy as what you're advocating?

All of them. Just pick a subject, and the laws are fuzzy. This is why clever lawyers can exploit them. It isn't easy writing a law that cannot be interpreted incorrectly. In fact, it's virtually impossible.

Even if you can write a law that is clear and impossible to misunderstand or misinterpret, you then have to prove that it doesn't run afoul of a whole lot of other "law" (such as the 14th amendment which means whatever the judges want it to mean at the time) and therefore gets it ruled "unconstitutional."