Bwaaah! Oh man, I love this guy.
Posted on 05/28/2020 1:42:16 PM PDT by Helicondelta
It chaps the LIEberals....I’ve been hearing their wailing all day on Facebook. I point out that they are the same folks who were pushing for the Fairness Doctrine not so long ago.
Exactly.
This is huge.
It closes the loophole (that never really existed) where we can sue social media now for libel and slander *If* they continue to police content like they do. Which effectively makes social media dead. Can you imagine how crappy it would be to post something happening now and needing to wait several weeks before it gets reviewed/approved as ok?
The Section230 rule was meant to allow web based companies to remove content like child porn and snuff films without being considered an editor/publisher. It’s a big deal because if you’re an editor/publisher you can be sued for libel. Anyway social media has gone beyond just removing very bad stuff, they are now trying to tell you what they think is true, right, wrong, good, and bad is. It goes well beyond the intention of section 230.
So they need to stop doing the fact checking and deleting of posts or be subject to lawsuits. So next time some lefty says something online and libels/slanders me...I get to sue facebook. Even if I don’t win, the case will go forward. Facebook/twitter/youtube will be overrun with cases. Some they will win some they won’t. But overall they lose no matter what because that costs a lot of money and it opens them up to discovery.
This is a big nail in the coffin if they continue to operate this way.
Would be even better if Trump said:
“Hey, I have a pen, and a cellphone...”
Then stand back and watch the liberal Moron Collective heads explode.
Section 230. You should read it.
What are you talking about?
This order did not close anything. I think the statute needs to change and that’s not happening.
All this order says is staff look at the current situation and see what you can to.
There is no immunity clause for them. They are abusing the existing clause that is intended to keep child porn and snuff films from being posted and not being able to be removed.
It’s not meant to police political thought and what you think is satire/funny and what isn’t. At that point that’s an editor/publisher and they are now subject to lawsuits.
Trump is just telling the executive branch to enforce section 230 as it is intended. Social media took the slippery slope and gradually increased their editorializing. Now it got noticed. This is basically a warning to them to stop it or the administration will back lawsuits against them saying section 230 doesn’t apply to them any longer.
He's using the Royal We now? Does he think he's the king? Good grief.
They can do what they want. But if they WANT immunity under section 230, then they need to do what they are required to do under that section.
It's like a 501(c)3 Corporation. If they want the tax breaks, then they have to follow the requirements of that section.
Trump is using his executive authority to enforce the section 230 regulations.
Twitter and Facebook don't have to claim immunity under section 230, but if they don't submit to the regulations under that section, then they lose their immunity.
All Twitter and Facebook and You Tube need to do is to declare that they are publishers and not platforms.
If that's what they want, then they can do what they want.
I suspect they will WANT that protection. So they will have to follow the rules.
This order was not haphazardly put together since yesterday. This has all the earmarks of an order that has been in the pipeline for months.
>
I believe the Constitution guarantees freedom of association inclusive of freedom of non-association.
>
‘Helps’ when supposed “(R)N(C)” play along w/ the charade...
Just note the # of supportive posts on Pres. Trump’s (illegal) EO, but whoa vs. Zero’s (illegal) EOs
Bwaaah! Oh man, I love this guy.
Has to do with defamation lawsuits. Without the protection of the rule, if a person defamed someone on line and a social media company publishes it without investigating the truth, the media company could also be sued for republishing the defamatory
statements.
The law only allows threatening and dangerous posts to be deleted. Neither of those apply to Trump.
Once the social media company starts to make claims about a post, the are operating outside the law that protects them from defamation lawsuits.
For that reason, Twitter is going to cave in to the demands of President Trump on his and other conservative Twitter users.
P
Do it against Breibart as well. It may be a conservative site, but I damn well know liberals are moderating their Disqus forum. I been banned there a number of times for no good reason.
Where in the Constitution, the ONLY source of legitimate power of the feds, is this power specifically enumerated?
It does nothing, except direct executive departments under Pres. Trump's control to investigate regulatory action over the big three: Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Its a symbolic shot across the bow to persuade the big three to clean up their act. And it will have the desired effect if combined with anti-trust action.
“It’s a free service not sure why they can’t do what they want. “
Sure, totally agree, however, they have federal protections that they shouldn’t have. Trump just took the first move to remove those protections.
Praise YHVH (God)!
I agree. They should be able to be sued just like newspapers.
Not sure how you and I can read the same thing and come to such opposite conclusions. You did read it right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.