For a guy who looks like the adipose detritus of liposuction surgery, he sure gets around. It’s really all about confidence and never taking no for answer, isn’t it.
IANAL, but my understanding is that Fox News is not treated like a carrier in the same way social media are. Under certain circumstances, they can be sued for deliberately defaming people. They produce the information, which is fundamentally different from Facebook or Twitter which just provides the platform.
(My emphasis)
Does Twitter posting a comment next to trump’s tweets suggesting that readers should fact check his tweet (and then providing a link to said “fact”) constitute editing? I mean, we’re not even supposed to edit quoted material here on the SDMB. We can comment, disparage, rip to shreds, etc., all we want. Just don’t tamper with the original. Twitter is not tampering with the content of his tweets. I don’t see the appended comment as editing or as censorship. Am I all wet on this?
How does this message board manage it?
Bingo. He wants to talk about anything besides 100,000 dead Americans.
This seems a strange position to take. If I own a newspaper, and only publish articles by liberal writers, is that stifling free speech?
Or are only “platforms” subjected to your strange concept of free speech? How are you defining “platform” anyway? Is Reddit a “platform”? Is this message board a “platform”?
If Trump really has billions he could easily setup his own Trumpitter. And his cult will follow him there.
IANAL, but I’m pretty sure you are not even slightly damp.
Personally, I think I’m going to enjoy hearing the judge’s opinion if the White House actually decides to argue in a court filing that appending additional, factual information to an unaltered text somehow constitutes censorship.
I’m not sure. But ‘fact checking’ is a dangerous path, because even if every fact check is correct, it can still be used as a political weapon if both sides lie and only one side gets ‘fact checked’.
Here’s the liability limitation language in section 230:
So it seems to me that he’d either have to remove section 230, or somehow argue that his tweets do not constitute ‘obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable’ speech. If Trump’s lawyers could show that politicians on the left do not come u der the same scrutiny, then the editorial powers u der sec 230 have been twisted for political ends, and objectively based on the violent, harrassing or otherwise objectionable material in Trump’s posts.
My opinion is that Trump is going down a dangerous path by using the power of government to solve his personal spat with twitter. What he should do if he doesn’t like Twitter is to take his dog and pony show to another provider like Gab. He has every right to do so, and he’d probably take millions of users with him and force the media to report on what he says there. Twitter would lose the free advertising it gets from Trump, and Gab or whatever service he lands on.
While on the whole I think Sam Stone’s post is an articulate analysis of the morass surrounding online interactions and Section 230, the Communications Decency Act was passed in 1996 and Facebook and Twitter didn’t carve out a special exemption so much as take advantage of a pre-existing one. Section 230 protects pretty much any entity that publishes third party content. Amazon user reviews, forum posts, newspaper and blog comments, videos on youtube and vimeo are all possible because the ‘publisher’ is protected by Section 230.
If online services cannot be guaranteed that protection, I suspect we would see a lot of sites proactively burn anything that they do not directly create if it’s at all feasible without destroying said website’s core appeal. I am not sure that I believe the FCC will actually change anything about how they interpret Section 230 simply because the knock-on effects of what people expect the internet to be for would be so great.
Trump (and octopus) want to protect fee speech by telling businesses what they can and can’t say.
It took a couple decades, but Republicans finally support the Fairness Doctrine I guess.
Would it be so bad if we implemented an Internet Fairness Doctrine? Civil discourse seemed to be pretty decent back in the day, & stuff like Fox News, Limbaugh and Brietbart didn’t exist. Twitter & Facebook have been a cancer on society anyway, and are shameless foreign propaganda tools. It’s hard for me to feel bad for these social media parasites right now.
So, octopus, you’re saying that you oppose Trump’s move to punish companies for exercising and promoting free speech? Is your opposition to this move sufficient for you to reconsider your overall support of Trump?
Well, that may be, but nowhere do I see Trump attempting to get rid of them. Instead, he is attempting to control them, and bend them to his advantage. So, as much as I don’t love them, for the reasons you state, I would rather they are independent of Trump’s control.
From today’s NYTimes:
B-b-b-b-ut Twitter ISN’T suspending trump or deleting his posts (though I wish they would). So what’s his point? I know. Silly question.
Well, there isnt. Kavanaugh is the only trump pawn or should I say butt-monkey?
Roberts* leans* right, but is no fan of trump.
Alito is a strict constructionist and a defender of the 1st ad. But otherwise quite conservative.
Gorsuch is very conservative, and owes trump- but- he is also a constructionist.
I think Thomas is the most predictably partisan member of the supposedly non-partisan Court. The others occasionally disagree with how one would expect them to rule if they were the lackey of the Republicans, and as cynical as I am, I don’t believe the conspiracy theories that they deliberately throw an occasional bone in matters of little consequence to make themselves appear non-partisan when they rule the way their masters want on the issues that matter.
Yeah, Thomas, while no trump fan, is very politically conservative, and not that good of a jurist, either. Thomas doesnt seem to have much in the way of opinions, either. Trump can count on his vote.
Roberts, Alito and Gorsuch are respected jurists, and can be counted on to protect the Constitution. Of course “protect” is open to interpretation.
FOX News has websites too.
Roberts is a very reliable conservative. Conservatives think he is somewhow in the middle because of the healthcare vote but that is only one vote of many.