House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'

from the sad-state-of-affairs dept

The Republican Party that once claimed to be the party of keeping government out of business and that actions have consequences has moved far, far beyond that. These days, it’s a parody of everything it once derided. Take a look at House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s newly announced Framework to Stop the Bias and Check Big Tech. Even from the naming you can see quite clearly ridiculous victim-playing. There remains no evidence of any “anti-conservative bias” in social media content moderation. It is true that some Republican supporters have faced moderation… for breaking the rules. Just as some non-Republicans have faced moderation for those same reasons. It’s just that these Republicans — with no other fundamental principles to go on — have tried to turn basic content moderation for policy breaking into a whiny victimhood.

Remember when Republicans used to mock Democrats for always playing the victim and being “whiny snowflakes”? Apparently it was all projection.

Just days before the 2018 primary election, Google search results for ?California Republicans? identified our ideology as ?Nazism.? At the same time, conservatives like Devin Nunes and Donald Trump Jr. were shadow banned on Twitter. For pro-life groups like Live Action and others, the discrimination wasn?t subtle at all. Since then, the examples of conservative censorship and bias across internet platforms has proliferated. Each one of you are all too familiar with how Big Tech and its overwhelmingly liberal executives want to set the agenda and silence conservatives.

Of course, each of those has a story behind them and none of them are presented accurately. Note that McCarthy doesn’t bother to explore why any of the above happened (if they happened — Twitter doesn’t engage in “shadow banning” so that’s just misleading claptrap). No one at social media companies wants to “silence conservatives.” Again, most of the evidence suggests the exact opposite. But the fact is that if you violate policies — including by spreading dangerous disinformation about, say, health or elections — you might get kicked off.

That should be a policy that actual “conservatives” support. It’s about the rights of private property owners to choose not to do business with those who are disruptive — and for those being disruptive to face the consequences of their own actions. That seems like the kinds of things that conservatives used to insist they support.

Over 90 percent of search happens on Google and 90 percent of users drop off after first-page results. The ability to stack the deck protects the willing participants of the scheme and punishes the non-compliant. The same gatekeeper effect lies with Amazon and Apple. If your company or product doesn?t meet the criteria of corporate wokeism, it?s increasingly likely Americans won?t find it on these platforms.

What are you even talking about? It’s got nothing to do with “corporate wokeism” — a hilariously stupid term in its own right. And we’ve seen over and over again that the platforms have actually bent over backwards to have a light touch on conservatives to avoid being accused of bias. The reality is that there is unequal treatment: the sites have given conservatives a lot more leeway, and only proceeded to moderate in the most extreme cases.

Just to make this clear, looking at the accounts that get the most link clicking on Facebook, they are almost always dominated by famous “conservative” individuals and organizations.

Again, the evidence does not suggest “anti-conservative bias.” If it’s true (and even this could be disputed) that conservatives violate the policies of social media services more often — for example, by posting utterly debunked conspiracy theories about elections, healthcare, and more — well, perhaps that’s on them. Not the companies.

Then we get to the actual policy recommendations:

Accountability: Our framework would rein in Big Tech and end their abusive practices, including by changing the law so that Americans can challenge Big Tech directly for their infringement of public speech rights. This effort starts by taking away the liability shield Big Tech has hidden behind for far too long. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act would be changed to limit liability protections for moderation of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment and would preclude Big Tech from discriminating against Americans based on their political affiliation. We would also require regular reauthorization of Section 230 so Congress may update regulations of the constantly-evolving internet landscape.

Sigh. This is such garbage. Moderation is not an infringement of your right to speech. You can still speak — you just don’t have a guaranteed right to use someone else’s property to speak. And if you took away 230, you’d get significantly less speech because you’d massively ramp up the legal liability and frivolous lawsuits against social media websites. Remember when Republicans were against handing plaintiffs’ lawyers the easy ability to file vexatious lawsuits? Apparently that’s out the window.

Also, what the hell does: “limit liability protections for moderation of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment” mean? That would be a massive 1st Amendment violation in its own right, saying that websites must leave up all protected speech. Lies, porn, hate speech, conspiracy theories, harassment, abuse are all protected speech under the 1st Amendment in most cases (there are a few edge cases that wouldn’t count). But under such an approach, these Republicans would be turning the entire internet into a cesspool of garbage.

Similarly: “preclude Big Tech from discriminating against Americans based on their political affiliation.” First of all, no one is being banned for being a Republican today. The only cases I’ve ever seen of someone being banned for political affiliation were Nazis. So the Republican Party is now making it official party platform that websites must protect Nazi speech? Really?

Transparency: Our framework would empower Americans by ending Big Tech?s ability to hide behind vague terms of service that have not constrained their conduct in any meaningful way. We will do so by mandating that any Big Tech content moderation decisions or censorship must be listed, with specificity, on a publicly available website. In addition, by requiring Big Tech to implement and maintain a reasonable user-friendly appeals process, our plan will empower conservatives and others whose speech rights have been infringed to challenge Big Tech?s attacks.

Anyone who knows anything about content moderation knows what this really means: give us the rules so we can figure out how to argue with you that we didn’t break them. This is the abusers/harassers free pass to be a total asshole to the staff of social media companies, insisting that when they’re harassing someone it wasn’t “really” harassment. Or when they post racist garbage “it was just a joke.” This is to open the floodgates on being able to continue to annoy and harass social media to try to make sure all garbage content must remain up.

Strengthening Anti-Trust Review: Our framework also recognizes that the status quo and bureaucratic delays are not acceptable when it comes to bringing long-overdue antitrust scrutiny to Big Tech. We will provide an expedited court process with direct appeal to the Supreme Court and empower state attorneys general to help lead the charge against the tech giants to break them up. We will also reform the administrative state and remove impediments that delay taking action on Big Tech power.

I mean, Republicans have spent the past four or five decades redefining anti-trust to make it effectively impossible to win a case on anti-trust grounds, so this is quite a turnaround — but also one of those situations where you almost want to say “hey, you made this bed, now lay in it.”

Anyway, a few days after McCarthy put out this ridiculous “framework,” Republicans on the House Judiciary put out their own plan, which they claimed was “consistent” with McCarthy’s framework — and it is. It is consistently disconnected from reality.

It, of course, removes Section 230:

A cause of action to empower Americans. For far too long, Big Tech has been able to censor the views of conservatives with effectively no recourse available to those affected. This proposal would create a statutory basis for Americans to directly challenge Big Tech in court for its censorship and silencing of conservatives.

Overhauling Big Tech?s liability shield. Congress passed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to allow internet platforms to moderate unlawful or offensive content on their platforms. Big Tech has exploited this protection to make subjective content moderation decisions, often in a manner harmful to conservative voices. This proposal will ensure that any content moderation decisions are done in good faith, based on objectively reasonable criteria, and in accord with particularized rules.

As has become standard among politicians these days, this completely misstates and misunderstands how Section 230 (and the 1st Amendment) work. Both of the concepts above would be clear violations of the 1st Amendment, as we just saw with the Florida law that Florida Law that tried to create something similar.

The whole thing is one giant performative, grievance, pity party from the party that used to pretend to be against such things. It’s just sad, but that is the state of the Republican party these days.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
192 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Well…

"If the armband with the swastika fits…"

Or the odal-shaped speaker’s podium from which select party luminaries belted out a message of blood and soil to the Very Fine People of their current base at that infamous golden idol CPAC?

Official party policy or not it’s become frighteningly obvious that the GOP has abandoned any semblance of catering to the rational and merely conservative, now tailoring their message completely toward belligerent rubes, racists and bigots. The dogwhistle has been dropped in favor of the bullhorn.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Well…

Can the Techdirt commentariat please make up its mind?

Say yes or no: are current Republicans/conservatives ‘nazis’? You’re saying as much.

Then you say “conservatives aren’t being banned” and “nazis are being banned”.

But here you keep intimating that ‘conservative’ and ‘nazi’ are synonymous.

Ergo, CONSERVATIVES are being BANNED.

Be consistent. Have the courage of your convictions; just come right out and say ‘we hate White people.’

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Well…

"Can the Techdirt commentariat please make up its mind?"

No. Despite the whining and claims otherwise, this is not a hive mind. It’s a group of people from various different places around the world who sometimes disagree, sometimes don’t. There might be strong consensus on some issues, but it can’t make "it’s mind" because there are many different minds included.

"Say yes or no: are current Republicans/conservatives ‘nazis’? You’re saying as much."

Some are, some aren’t. The ones who aren’t don’t seem to have many qualms about associating with the Nazis, and often repeat their propaganda.

"just come right out and say ‘we hate White people.’"

Uh huh… "Dont’ call us Nazis/white supremacists", but then you immediately assert that opposing Republican ideals is opposing white people. The mirror is where you need to look, and it’s not going to reflect something you want to see.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Well…

"Is it at all possible for Mike’s Authoratarinas to make a free speech arguemnt without refering to Nazi’s."

Sure it is. While you were coming up with a stupid nickname, the rest of us also address the homophobic, misogynist and religious fanatics who have been facing the same consequences as their white supremacist counterparts. It’s just that the literal Nazis who started whining about how facing consequences is so unfair were the most vocal and obviously unacceptable group when the whining started.

Now, do you have any examples of people who have been facing those consequences that don’t fit into those groups? Because despite many, many requests, we’re still waiting for a single example.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

It seems like the overarching goal of this (and the push behind it) is to make sure the internet is so full of nonsense and lies, that when an actual damming truth comes out of is exposed, either no-one will see it, or it will be called out as a lie.

I can conceivable image Gaetz pushing out lies about himself that when something credible about his activists come to light, it can just be dismissed as just another lie.

Information is power, and can make or break lives and careers, so why give the common people out there any information beyond what makes you look and feel good.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
BernardoVerda (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

As Bannon summed it up in a pithy little nutshell — the quite conscious, explicit and deliberate information (ie. propaganda) strategy is to "flood the zone with shit."

They (at least, the ones who pick the line and set the tone) know exactly what they are doing.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

"But, we’re the bad guys when we utter the word Nazi in response…"

It’s a sign of the times that Godwin himself has become adamant about referring to the nazis as what they are. And that leads to only one conclusion about the party now relying on nazis and white supremacists as their base.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: They're all the same

I’d disagree. Historically, there were good republicans that kept the democrats in check. However, over the past 30 years, most of those with any sway in the party have been methodically rooted out, such that now there’s the ruling republicans and the deluded voting republicans, and not really anyone else. The problem of course is that republicans tilt highly conservative, which means the voter base is the group least likely to change their vote based on reason or evidence, most likely to vote based on tradition and loyalty.

That said, the tenets of republicanism were abandoned by the party years ago. If someone comes back standing for the values of the traditional republican party, I bet a lot of people would vote for them. Especially if it’s a white guy named Pat Buchannan.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: They're all the same

Historically, there were good republicans that kept the democrats in check.

Those would be the pre-Southern Strategy Republicans, i.e., the progressive party of Lincoln, not the current anti-democracy clown car of racism, classism and obstructionism.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: They're all the same

"Historically, there were good republicans that kept the democrats in check."

Difficult to make that statement gel properly when over the last 50 years the KKK and american neo-nazi parties have rebranded themselves as "republicans" while those who would have fit in Lincoln’s old party are now solidly found in the middle of the democrats.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
David says:

I think you are underestimating Republicans

Remember when Republicans used to mock Democrats for always playing the victim and being "whiny snowflakes"? Apparently it was all projection.

I think it is not as much projection as deflection. Nobody of consequence believes in systematic voting fraud any more, nobody of consequence wants to hear character assassinations and so on. The people on the left aisle want to put a lid on all that crap and move on.

It’s just that if you look on which side there actually were systematic and individual cases of voting fraud, which voting machine manufacturers contribute donations to which party while still having voting machines in duty that don’t produce a paper trail, which party has troll factories of local and foreign origin working for them: making people tired of looking more closely, and if they do, have absurd false equivalences to wave around…

Making the left side wish to put a lid on all that kind of crap may be an intended strategic effect. Not mere "innocent" projection.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
David says:

Re: Re:

You underestimate the event horizon of a rabbit hole.

There is no anchor focused on veracity that a self-respecting Republican could watch any more.

Just look at the "x% of Republicans/Democrats believe that [factual statement]" kind of surveys that are conducted with increasing frequencies. The numbers just fall apart these days.

It’s not as much dividing the Republican party as it is focusing it. They gain more than they lose: they are not angling for minorities other than as scapegoats.

They are banking on the ugly majority, plus a sufficient ratio of minorities that is more enthused about other minorities being turned into scapegoats that they feel able to gloss over being one themselves.

History shows that to be a winning strategy.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Unfortunately it won’t divide the party enough. Many people when it comes to voting they just look at a single issue. For Rs it is either guns or abortion (I am not sure what the equivalent would be for Ds). Prior to the last election I saw an interview some some clueless idiot that basically said… I don’t agree with anything Trump has done or said but the Repubs are against abortion so I am voting R.

There was a time when Rs had some ideas that sounded good but then they would suck up to the extreme right/religious zealots and negate any reason I could have had for voting R.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"At least it’s dividing the Republican party"

Only insofar as it concerns which strongman candidate they want. As far as "republican" politics are concerned, just stick a fork in the GOP, they’re done. All the republicans still clinging to sanity have left or are today political nonentities hoping against hope that eventually the current crop of assholes will lose momentum and die out.

Sadly these pseudo-schindlers are looking to be disappointed. The current GOP has only two ways to go. To the top or crashing to the ground. A change in direction towards actual sanity will not sit well with the voters currently casting their ballots for them.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: No left or right.

There’s definitely Left and Right, but they’re not represented by current US political parties. Compared to the rest of the world, Republicans are far right, and Democrats are Right. Except that modern Republicans aren’t really right when it comes to conservative, as they don’t really want to conserve. They want to create a new fascist regime.

Saying "they’re all the same" is totally untrue. You have a choice between a strong Conservative pro-business government and a fascist government. Those like Sanders and AOC in the Democratic party who lean slightly left of center have a voice, but they have no power to actually shift policy to progressive liberalism.

So while it’s not the case that Democrats are so different from the traditional Republicans that they will create a social state and eat babies, it IS the case that Republicans are so different that they want to destroy democracy and replace it with a facts-optional fascist facade where the people are ruled by lies and force.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: No left or right.

"The Republicans and Democrats are both after power and the means to keep it. The difference between them is not whether you get screwed, it’s how."

That’s very oversimplified. Meanwhile, on a global scale you have virtually nothing in the centre, let alone the "left" in politics and you keep wondering why things don’t work when people who say "hey, maybe we should try things that are demonstrated to work in other countries" are attacked as being communists.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 No left or right.

That’s very oversimplified.

True. However, in my perhaps over-cynical view, I don’t see either party as acting in the interests of anyone but themselves (with very few exceptions). I don’t see their motivations as trying to improve the country. I see their motivations as "whatever gets us elected." If that means appealing to bigots, so be it. If that means promising government-provided "free" stuff, so be it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

Glad To Help

Also, what the hell does: "limit liability protections for moderation of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment" mean?

It means that if you don’t claim someone else’s speech as your own, then you similarly can’t claim first amendment protection. Social media companies will need to choose between being a platform, or being a publisher. There is no first amendment protection for anyone to censor others. Moderation must be limited to removing things such as obscenity or commercial spam, and leave political speech alone.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Glad To Help

or commercial spam

What makes ‘commercial spam’ illegal?

Whether or not it’s ‘commercial’ has absolutely nothing to do with it. Might want to brush up on the CAN-SPAM act before throwing that term around.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help

"Cuz Koby probably works for a company that spams."

It’s pretty clear where Koby’s sympathies lie. It isn’t with money. No, his sympathies are entirely about the fact that white supremacy philosophy is banned on Twitter and Facebook. The Very Fine People from Charlottesville are the ones Koby is shilling for.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help

However, commercial speech is not subject to first amendment protections, and has been the subject of government regulation.

That’s trying to have it both ways.

Certainly if social media companies should be forced to carry speech they don’t want to host (e.g. yours), they should also be free to carry spam (e.g. their choice – freedom of association).

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Glad To Help

Why do you extrapolation to absurdity and reduction to absurdity always want to have philosophical arguments and not what the case law is now?

What is is. Commercial speech his regulated and that has been found by the SCOTUS to be within the bounds of the 1st Amendment. I’m not going to engage in your absurd arguments.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Glad To Help

What is is. Commercial speech his regulated and that has been found by the SCOTUS to be within the bounds of the 1st Amendment. I’m not going to engage in your absurd arguments.

Oh come on…you’re not going to engage to prevent you from further looking like a fucking fool. Care to comment on the GETTR article where they seem to be moderating free speech contrary to the first amendment you morons keep citing?

Or are you going to cut & run like those other assholes Koby and Restless 90210?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Glad To Help

"Commercial speech his regulated and that has been found by the SCOTUS to be within the bounds of the 1st Amendment."

Given specific definitions indeed. If you are paid to advertise then you can not use outright falsehoods in your advertising. THAT is how commercial speech is "regulated". Tell factual truth and suddenly even commercial speech is very difficult to fit under regulation.

But hey, we shouldn’t be too surprised to see you babbling manifest untruth in support of calling someone names, Baghdad Bob. It’s the only gimmick you’ve got.

"I’m not going to engage in your factual arguments."

Fixed That For You.

Par for the course for you to lie outright then try to claim anyone dissenting with your fairytale is "absurd".
Like when you built a major argument around the precedent case of Munn, failing to pick up that case was overturned over a century ago.

All this time, Baghdad Bob, and you still can’t produce a single argument not rooted in debunked urban myth, long-overturned law, outright fantasy or simple ad hom.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Glad To Help

"Like when you built a major argument around the precedent case of Munn, failing to pick up that case was overturned over a century ago."

Munn was never overturned. The law was eventually overturned on an interstate commerce argument. The "pubic interest" principle of Munn still stands. Unfortunately you get your law from Wikipedia.

Wabash is a very very very short ruling.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/557/

"(4) The cases of Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113; Chicago v. Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Iowa, 94 U. S. 155, and Peik v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway, 94 U. S. 164, examined in regard to this question, and held, in view of other cases decided near the same time, NOT TO ESTABLISH CONTARY DOCTRINE.

(5) NOT WITHSTANDING WHAT IS THERE SAID, THHIS COURT HOLDS NOW AND HAS NEVER CONCIOUSLY HELD OTHERWISE, that a statute of a state, intended to regulate or to tax or to impose any other restriction upon the transmission of persons or property or telegraphic messages from one state to another, is not within that class of legislation which the states may enact in the absence of legislation by Congress, and that such statutes are void even as to that part of such transmission which may be within the state."

In short child Munn was never reversed. The court went out of its way to make it clear that it wasn’t reversing Munn or any other decision. All Wabash said was that states regulation cannot be used to restrict commerce between that states. That is all.

I was kind of surprised to see that Munn had been reversed when you first said it. It only took a little to see that the reason you thought that was because you were dumb enough to use Wikipedia as a source.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
cpt kangarooski says:

Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help

However, commercial speech is not subject to first amendment protections

Wrong, dipshit. Commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment. It just needs to be truthful and about lawful activity and then it’s quite difficult to regulate. From the Supreme Court’s opinion in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980)

The First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, protects commercial speech from unwarranted governmental regulation. Commercial expression not only serves the economic interest of the speaker, but also assists consumers and furthers the societal interest in the fullest possible dissemination of information. In applying the First Amendment to this area, we have rejected the "highly paternalistic" view that government has complete power to suppress or regulate commercial speech.

If the communication is neither misleading nor related to unlawful activity, the … State must assert a substantial interest to be achieved by restrictions on commercial speech. Moreover, the regulatory technique must be in proportion to that interest. The limitation on expression must be designed carefully to achieve the State’s goal. Compliance with this requirement may be measured by two criteria. First, the restriction must directly advance the state interest involved; the regulation may not be sustained if it provides only ineffective or remote support for the government’s purpose. Second, if the governmental interest could be served as well by a more limited restriction on commercial speech, the excessive restrictions cannot survive.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Glad To Help

Commercial speech has been regulated, particularly on determining where commercial speech can occur, as well as compelling certain speech. Government has mandated nutrition labels. Government has also been able to control where tobacco advertisements can be shown. Clearly, the case that you have sited would permit a state to be able to restrict commercial spam by demonstrating a compelling state interest.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Glad To Help

"Clearly, the case that you have sited would permit a state to be able to restrict commercial spam by demonstrating a compelling state interest"

Yet, that speech that is cited would have to pass a well established test. "Racists are annoyed that they’re being banned for being racists" probably doesn’t fit.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 1st amendment

Commercial speech has been regulated, particularly on determining where commercial speech can occur, as well as compelling certain speech. Government has mandated nutrition labels. Government has also been able to control where tobacco advertisements can be shown. Clearly, the case that you have sited would permit a state to be able to restrict commercial spam by demonstrating a compelling state interest.

So your argument, As so many people will meaninglessly claim, is that the 1A has limitations. No disagreement. Rulings cited demonstrate commercial speech in general has 1A protection. If you read the ruling cpt kangarooski cited or his summary, you’d know where the lines were drawn – Misleading speech (similarly to Defamation, falsity has weaker 1A protections), Unlawful Activity (similarly to non-commercial speech, the discussion of unlawful activity receives weaker 1A protections), And finally, the government can, subject to strict scrutiny, restrict speech to fulfill a compelling government purpose (I may as well be quoting standard 1A restrictions for non-commercial speech at this point).

The restrictions allowed are founded in the well-established exceptions to the 1A. Commercial speech may have weaker protections than non-commercial speech. But the ways and reasons for 1A exceptions are no different between commercial and non-commercial speech.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help

commercial speech is not subject to first amendment protections

Sorry, but that’s incorrect.

In Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, SCOTUS declared that Commercial speech IS protected by the 1st amendment.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Glad To Help

Might as well give it a rest. "Chozen" will, true to form, cheerfully misquote half of a ruling at some point and take it for whatever argument he shanghais the poor twisted thing to back.

It’s as if a judge making the explicit ruling that "This is not the way any of this works!" is somehow up for dispute by his lonesome self.

And then he’ll call you an idiot because you know the facts.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Glad To Help you with Reading Comprehension

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"Social media companies will need to choose between being a platform, or being a publisher. There is no first amendment protection for anyone to censor others"

Social media and those that run the platforms are not Congress or a body of government; the first amendment does not apply. Pretty much every recent attempt by GOP attack dogs to force platforms to carry their speech, however…

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Glad To Help

So, what about offensive and abusive political speech that would drive users away from social platforms. What you want is a hecklers charter that would destroy most reasoned discussion on any subject where their is a political divide.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

Re: Re: Glad To Help

Primarily, it’s not about discussions. On social media, folks are able to create an account and post content, and others can choose whether to follow and receive that content. If anyone finds speech offensive, they are free to stop following that account. Meanwhile, the SJWs don’t want to moderate discussion; rather, it is the original message that they want to delete, or perhaps they want to deplatform the entire account out of spite. The original message must be left alone. Let the users themselves decide if they want to continue receiving it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help

On social media, folks are able to create an account and post content, and others can choose whether to follow and receive that content.

Interesting point – if that’s the case, then it must be people you already know that are reporting you and want you to shut up.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Glad To Help

Why do you want Twitter and Facebook to change the rules they operate under? Their rules seem clear enough to everybody except those who think that expression of political opinion includes directly attacking people whose colour, lifestyle or religion they disagree with; along with any disagreement with whatever crackpot conspiracy they believe in, like ‘conservatives being silenced’.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help

"If anyone finds speech offensive, they are free to stop following that account"

Yes, but algorithms have a habit of introducing other accounts, and since they’re imperfect it can cause a lot of problems if you end up in the wrong "silo"

"Meanwhile, the SJWs don’t want to moderate discussion"

Hint: using "SJW" unironically marks you as an idiot.

"it is the original message that they want to delete"

The original message of hatred against them and people who look like them? Yes.

"Let the users themselves decide if they want to continue receiving it."

Or… let the users pass that responsibility on to the platform they use and continue seeing what they want to see instead of constantly curating thinks they find offensive. Right-wing cesspools do this all the time, I’m not sure why you think that mainstream outlets shouldn’t.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help

"Meanwhile, the SJWs don’t want to moderate discussion"

And this is the place where we discovered everything you say is twisted through the Proud Boy filter.

"…rather, it is the original message that they want to delete, or perhaps they want to deplatform the entire account out of spite."

Never happened. Sure, deplorable assholes violating the ToS get thrown out the same way deplorable assholes disturbing other patrons get evicted from bars all the time.

"Let the users themselves decide if they want to continue receiving it."

The users have already made that choice when they picked a platform with ToS they felt reasonable for the space they want to patronize.

The only people who have a problem with this are the deplorable assholes persistently getting thrown out for being deplorable assholes. And here you are, trying to argue the government needs to force people who have chosen not to associate with these deplorable assholes, to associate with them anyway. On private property.

That doesn’t make you an advocate of free speech. It makes you the lying fraud representing deplorable assholes against the interests of just about everyone else.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Glad To Help

There is no first amendment protection for anyone to censor others.

What about the right of association? I can simply choose to not let that person around my stuff.

Not that such an act is censorship, since there’s nothing stopping you from speaking somewhere else.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
David says:

Re: Re: Glad To Help

But there’s no ready-made audience elsewhere.

Basically the message is "that’s a very nice megaphone you have there. Wouldn’t it be a shame if it were shut down because you refuse to let me use it?".

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

Re: Re: Glad To Help

What about the right of association? I can simply choose to not let that person around my stuff.

The government has already passed civil rights laws stating that business cannot act with impunity regarding right of association, which is a good thing. While business can impose rules for EVERYONE to follow equally, businesses have been found guilty of civil rights violations when they treat others unequally. And many woke corporations fear the possibility of lawsuits based on demonstration of unequal treatment.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help

The government has already passed civil rights laws stating that business cannot act with impunity regarding right of association, which is a good thing.

Sure, but I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make bringing civil rights law into the discussion. "Political Conservative" is not a protected class.

businesses have been found guilty of civil rights violations when they treat others unequally.

Sure, if the basis of the unequal treatment is membership in a protected class. Again, "Political Conservative" is not a protected class. And even if it was, there’s no proof that this has happened with regard to "anti-conservative bias."

And many woke corporations fear the possibility of lawsuits based on demonstration of unequal treatment.

Nobody likes wasting money defending against frivolous litigation.

When I drive home from work, I pass by a billboard advertising a dating service that is explicitly catering to those of a particular political affiliation. If these sort of laws pass, couldn’t someone of a different political affiliation sign up on that service, and the service be forced to accommodate them, because they couldn’t discriminate based on political views?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Glad To Help

Sure, but I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make bringing civil rights law into the discussion. "Political Conservative" is not a protected class.

But they could. And some states have done so in certain areas, such as California with regards to employment.

And even if it was, there’s no proof that this has happened with regard to "anti-conservative bias."

That’s fine. Just let the corporations issue an official reason for a ban, and then let there be a civil trial.

couldn’t someone of a different political affiliation sign up on that service, and the service be forced to accommodate them

I’ve mentioned this before, that it would be ideal if social media companies would just be up-front. The billboard is about as up-front as could be, and everyone on the service would be subject to the same rules. In this case, that anyone not agreeing with that particular affiliation is banned. The trick with social media companies is that they decide their bias on the fly. During congressional hearings, they claim to be neutral, but then the SJWs act arbitrarily in practice. If a social media company were to be up-front about it and post something like "we hate Republicans, and we will ban them", I wouldn’t have a problem with it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Glad To Help

some states have done so in certain areas, such as California with regards to employment.

This to me seems like an astonishingly bad idea. What topics does a political viewpoint entail? Sure, there are the traditional things like taxation, government spending, property rights, etc. But lately, we’ve seen just about anything become politicized. Makes it very easy for anyone to claim anything is part of their "political viewpoint."

I’ll admit that I haven’t read California’s legislation on this, and hopefully they’ve managed to address the above, but I somehow doubt it.

That’s fine. Just let the corporations issue an official reason for a ban, and then let there be a civil trial.

The burden of proof is still on the claimant for proving bias. With as loud as conservatives are screaming about the supposed bias, why is it that none of the cases that have actually been brought have survived a motion to dismiss? Surely if the bias is so prevalent, the proof is out there? Twitter doesn’t have a single employee of a fair and just mind in a position where they could see the bias, think "this is wrong," and blow the whistle?

After so many unfounded and unproven complaints, you are going to need a lot more than "it exists, we swear" to convince me.

If a social media company were to be up-front about it and post something like "we hate Republicans, and we will ban them", I wouldn’t have a problem with it.

This contradicts your entire argument. First you say that social media shouldn’t be allowed to moderate political speech at all ("free speech must be enforced on that forum or free speech dies", you said), and now you’re saying that such moderation is totally fine if it’s explicitly stated in advance.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Glad To Help

why is it that none of the cases that have actually been brought have survived a motion to dismiss?

Primarily it’s Section 230, with judges dismissing prior to establishing whether the corporations have made bad faith moderation choices based upon politics and not their own rules. That’s why many people are advocating for 230 reform.

and now you’re saying that such moderation is totally fine if it’s explicitly stated in advance.

If they allow all political speech, platforms ought not be able to go back and begin banning those with whom they disagree. Post the bias up front, or else let it slide. I view the selective enforcement, demonetization, and shadow banning practices of social media to be demonstrative of their unwritten bias.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Primarily it’s Section 230, with judges dismissing prior to establishing whether the corporations have made bad faith moderation choices based upon politics and not their own rules.

Even if those corporations made their moderation decisions based on politics, that would still be a legal moderation decision and thus protected under 230. The law doesn’t protect people from discrimination based on political affiliation or ideology.

If they allow all political speech, platforms ought not be able to go back and begin banning those with whom they disagree.

Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
Con: LOL no…no not those views
Me: So…deregulation?
Con: Haha no not those views either
Me: Which views, exactly?
Con: Oh, you know the ones

(All credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence.)

I view the selective enforcement, demonetization, and shadow banning practices of social media to be demonstrative of their unwritten bias.

The bias is against bigoted speech. If people are being banned for being bigots and you’re associating that with people being banned for being conservatives, what does that say about conservatives⁠—and conservative speech?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Oh, you know...

Primarily it’s Section 230, with judges dismissing prior to establishing whether the corporations have made bad faith moderation choices based upon politics and not their own rules.

Which ‘politics’ would those be that are getting people banned again, and as always be specific.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Glad To Help

"Primarily it’s Section 230, with judges dismissing prior to establishing whether the corporations have made bad faith moderation choices based upon politics and not their own rules"

This is where you present evidence that people have been banned purely because of their politics and not something else. Even though telling people to GTFO your private property is protected speech, you have et to present an example of someone who was banned for such a thing rather than general abuse/asshole behaviour.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Glad To Help

Sure, but I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make bringing civil rights law into the discussion. "Political Conservative" is not a protected class.

Even if it was as noted in the article and by lots of people at this point no one is being kicked off social media for their political affiliation.

The people being kicked off and those defending them are just such gutless cowards that they refuse to own why they are actually being shown the door and instead keep trying to frame it as simply ‘political’ while being as vague as humanly possible as to what that means because they know if they’re honest only a tiny minority of people, basically all of which are the same sort of people being kicked out, will have any sympathy at all for the poor persecuted ‘conservatives’.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Glad To Help

"Sure, but I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make bringing civil rights law into the discussion. "Political Conservative" is not a protected class."

It is in California and DC. Many other states have laws preventing employment discrimination based on Political Affiliation so you are making a constitutional argument you have already lost. If states have the authority to add political affiliation to protected classes is asked and answered.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Glad To Help

"Many other states have laws preventing employment discrimination based on Political Affiliation so you are making a constitutional argument you have already lost."

First you tried to equate posting on a social platform with renting apartments and with that predictably backfiring spectacularly you now try to equate posting on forums with employment?

You going to make the claim that Facebook and Twitter must offer protective equipment, a health plan and friggin’ dental to passing commenters?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Glad To Help

It means that if you don’t claim someone else’s speech as your own, then you similarly can’t claim first amendment protection.

That sentence doesn’t make any sense at all, regardless how you parse it it’s just gobbledygook.

Social media companies will need to choose between being a platform, or being a publisher.

No, they don’t. The problem is that assholes and liars need to become better humans instead of shitting all over the place.

There is no first amendment protection for anyone to censor others.

Funnily enough, the first amendment only mentions what the government aren’t allowed to do. Regardless, you are free to point out anyone who have been "censored" and for what.

Moderation must be limited to removing things such as obscenity or commercial spam, and leave political speech alone.

Why? If I run a forum where political speech is forbidden, does that mean I still have to allow it? Why do you want to elevate political speech to protected speech? You only have to look at history to see where that leads, but hey, maybe you like fascism and totalitarism.

The real problem is that a majority of people isn’t interested interacting with assholes, but you and your asshole friends are hellbent on forcing yourself on others in the stupidest way you can since you aren’t smart enough to do anything else.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Glad To Help

And many woke corporations fear the possibility of lawsuits based on demonstration of unequal treatment.

So then you want them to treat every asshole the same, not just you assholes? Have you ever just considered that you’re bigger assholes than everyone else?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

Re: Re: Glad To Help

That sentence doesn’t make any sense at all, regardless how you parse it it’s just gobbledygook.

Most social media companies use section 230 to position speech that is posted by its users as not its own. The corporation then has a choice. 1.) accept it as its speech anyhow. This makes the company a publisher. They can fully control this type of speech, including censoring it, but they also become legally liable for it. Option 2.) maintain that the speech is not theirs, and they become a platform. You cannot claim that government is abridging your speech, if you are not the one engaged in the speech.

Why? If I run a forum where political speech is forbidden, does that mean I still have to allow it?

I personally believe that you ought to be allowed such a thing, as long as you post that rule up front, and you have equal enforcement. If there is unequal enforcement, however, that should be a cause for action.

Why do you want to elevate political speech to protected speech

"When a commercial platform de facto replaces the public forum, then either free speech must be enforced on that forum or free speech dies."

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help

"When a commercial platform de facto replaces the public forum, then either free speech must be enforced on that forum or free speech dies."

A) Says who?

B) There are no commercial platforms that have "de facto" replaced the public forum. The entire internet could shut down tomorrow and free speech would be just fine.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Khym Chanur (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help

I personally believe that you ought to be allowed such a thing, as long as you post that rule up front, and you have equal enforcement. If there is unequal enforcement, however, that should be a cause for action.

What if someone thinks there was unequal enforcement, sues, loses because there wasn’t any, and the forum has to eat the cost even though they won in court? People hosting forums would be reluctant to moderate when such a thing could happen.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help

Most social media companies use section 230 to position speech that is posted by its users as not its own.

They do? Well, I gonna need a big fat citation for that. But it doesn’t matter, since that is just them exercising their first amendment rights.

The corporation then has a choice. 1.) accept it as its speech anyhow. This makes the company a publisher. They can fully control this type of speech, including censoring it, but they also become legally liable for it. Option 2.) maintain that the speech is not theirs, and they become a platform. You cannot claim that government is abridging your speech, if you are not the one engaged in the speech.

I see. The moment the government steps in and tries to regulate speech in any way, it’s breaks the first amendment which means your childish "proposal" is against the constitution.

I personally believe that you ought to be allowed such a thing, as long as you post that rule up front, and you have equal enforcement. If there is unequal enforcement, however, that should be a cause for action.

You are aware that all social media TOS’s are quite readily available, you are free to point out what rules you think is ambiguous or unequal which lead me to yet again asking you to tell us about all these people who have been "censored" and for what? Perhaps you will answer the question this time, or are we going to see some deflection or are you just going to ghost it as usual?

"When a commercial platform de facto replaces the public forum, then either free speech must be enforced on that forum or free speech dies."

Yeah, enforced.. Tell me, how free are you when you are forced to carry speech you don’t want to? You are closet fascist Koby.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help

"Most social media companies use section 230 to position speech that is posted by its users as not its own"

Yes, the entire point is that people are held responsible for what they did themselves rather than what some random person did while stood on their property. This is the same thing that allows Stormfront to ban people who expressed a non-Neanderthal opinion as equally as it allows Twitter to ban people who call for genocide.

"I personally believe that you ought to be allowed such a thing, as long as you post that rule up front, and you have equal enforcement"

I’ll repeat what I usually say – if your problem is that Nazis are being banned and they align with you politically, your problem is not them being banned. Your problem is that you algin politically with Nazis.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help

"When a commercial platform de facto replaces the public forum, then either free speech must be enforced on that forum or free speech dies."

Cool quote, too bad you don’t win points for quotes that kind of sound profound until you spend any time at all thinking about them.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Glad To Help

There is no first amendment protection for anyone to censor others.

Wanna bet? Let me give you a few examples where I would censor you, and not even remotely give a shit about your 1st Amendment rights:

  • I’m sitting in a restaurant and you start blabbing about censorship next to my table. Guess who’s gonna stand up and tell your stupid ass to shut the fuck up, and continue to do so until you do?
  • I’m at home and you start yammering outside of it. Guess who’s going to give you to the count of three to get the fuck out before you get the hose?

Those are just a couple of examples, but I’m sure with enough time I can come up with plenty more. Your statement is bullshit, and I’m flagging it – see? There’s another one.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Glad To Help

That’s what they’re already doing. Unfortunately, a lot of so-called "political speech" is actually obscenity. The problem is, Republicans consider Democrat political speech to be obscenity, and Democrats consider Republican political speech to be obscenity. So anything incite-worthy from either camp gets booted from social media because they don’t want to have to defend anyone’s hate speech.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Glad To Help

And ironically, the Republican push to limit things here will not open up social media to be a politically blind platform. It will cause social media platforms to further limit speech on their platforms so that people don’t have the opportunity to spew hate and intolerance in the first place.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
John Roddy (profile) says:

Re: Glad To Help

How many times does it need to be explained to you before you finally realize you’re wrong? Almost all of the things subject to moderation are Constitutionally OK, and always have been. There is no policy argument for why they should be legally required to be hosted.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help

their entire argument depends on them not understanding

Isn’t that pretty much the go-to for everything the Republicans think they hate?

  • No one wants to work a minimum wage job
  • Critical Race Theory
  • Vaccinations / Wearing a damn mask
  • How elections work
  • How wars work
  • How government works
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Glad To Help

It means that if you don’t claim someone else’s speech as your own, then you similarly can’t claim first amendment protection.

This makes no sense Koby.

Social media companies will need to choose between being a platform, or being a publisher.

That makes no sense Koby.

There is no first amendment protection for anyone to censor others.

So you don’t believe in private property?

Moderation must be limited to removing things such as obscenity or commercial spam, and leave political speech alone.

So you don’t believe in the 1st Amendment’s prohibition on compelled speech?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

Re: Re: Glad To Help

So you don’t believe in private property?

I believe that something ubiquitous can become a public utility.

So you don’t believe in the 1st Amendment’s prohibition on compelled speech?

If it’s not your speech, then you’re not being compelled. And if you rely on 47 U.S. Code § 230 c(1) then it is NOT your speech.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I believe that something ubiquitous can become a public utility.

It can, sure. But it being ubiquitous alone doesn’t make a service like Twitter qualify for being a public utility. Take Twitter away and there are still tons of places on the Internet to go for communicating with others. Take the Internet away and you can still communicate with others in meatspace through face-to-face interactions, phone calls, faxes, or whatever else you can think of⁠—be it in private or in public.

Besides, if Twitter were to become a public utility, wouldn’t that mean the state would be seizing the means of social media production? Your communist leanings aren’t exactly helping your argument here, Koby.

If it’s not your speech, then you’re not being compelled.

Someone telling me to host someone else’s speech “or else” would be compelling me to host it by threatening to punish me for not hosting it. But you apparently seem fine with the idea of people being held at virtual (or real!) gunpoint while being made to host speech they wouldn’t normally host. (After all, you’ve never really answered that One Simple Question…)

if you rely on 47 U.S. Code § 230 c(1) then it is NOT your speech

Psst. Koby. I’mma let you in on a secret:

All interactive web services that accept third-party submissions rely on 47 U.S.C. § 230 to keep said services from being sued for moderating those submissions.

Oh, and here’s another secret:

230 doesn’t protect those services from legal liability for its first-party speech.

Oooh, and I nearly forgot the last one:

You’re so wrong about everything related to 230 that it would be hilarious if it weren’t so goddamned depressing to see someone with as much sense as you have in other conversations get this shit so wrong for the sake of defending the forcing of speech upon platforms like Twitter, especially when you’re unable to defend the kind of speech that would be forced upon those platforms by conservatives, which isn’t necessarily “conservative speech” but has become so tangled up in conservative sociopolitical ideology that it may was well be “conservative speech” even if they (and you) never directly own it as such.

Get all that? Good. Now fuck off.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help

I believe that something ubiquitous can become a public utility.

If you are in a cult, belief is all you have.

If it’s not your speech, then you’re not being compelled. And if you rely on 47 U.S. Code § 230 c(1) then it is NOT your speech.

Yeah well, ever heard of the first amendment in the constitution? It has something about freedom of association etc, perhaps you should read it instead of posting things that are contrary to factual reality.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help

I believe that something ubiquitous can become a public utility.

Public utility does not mean ubiquitous. Starbucks is ubiquitous. Should the gov’t seize Starbucks? I never took you for a communist, Koby.

If it’s not your speech, then you’re not being compelled.

What? The issue is compelled association, Kobes. Forcing me to HOST your nonsense speech violates the 1st Amendment.

And if you rely on 47 U.S. Code § 230 c(1) then it is NOT your speech.

Yes, but forcing me to HOST your speech is absolutely a violation of the 1st Amendment.

So, to sum up, you’re a communist who is against the 1st Amendment. Fascinating.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Glad To Help

Should the gov’t seize Starbucks?

As long as there’s competition, coffee at every other restaurant and grocery store and gas station, then we can rest easy. But if they were ever to become the dominant source of all coffee in the nation, then yes.

Forcing me to HOST your nonsense speech violates the 1st Amendment.

More speech is clearly not an abridgment of speech.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

As long as there’s competition

If you’re implying that Twitter has no competition and should thus be subjected to government seizure…holy shit, dude, you are so fucking wrong that it wraps around from being hilarious to being sad and back to being hilarious.

More speech is clearly not an abridgment of speech.

Yes or no, Koby: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Glad To Help

Social media does not need regulating as their is plenty of competition, Gettr, gab, Parler, Bitchute, blog comment sections etc. The outlets for speech on the Internet as as varied as the competition you allowed for Starbucks.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 'If I can swear over there I have a right to do so here!'

Running with the coffee shop comparison it would be rather like saying that there’s no competition in the industry because while there may be a bunch of coffee shops in a given area most people only go to a handful of them due to the others having atrocious customers, staff and/or health and safety practices.

The fact that most people only want to go to a few of the choices available does not mean those other choices don’t exist, and certainly doesn’t mean that regulations meant to deal with a lack of competition become warranted just because people used to the ‘acceptable behavior’ for those other businesses keep being shown the door when they act in their usual manner in the better shops.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Glad To Help

There is no effective competition. Twitter’s monthly active user count dwarfs that of other networks.

That looks like an admission that people don’t like you assholes, doesn’t it? Perhaps you should try to understand why people don’t like you, or shit-eating morons who complain about how everything is against them.

I’ve said it before, you disingenuous little shit-monger…you and the dipshits managing to get yourselves banned are being finked on by people you know, or more to the point – people YOU choose to associate with. Perhaps you should ask them why, but I don’t think you’re going to like the answer.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Glad To Help

There’s 2 problems there. Fiest, the "no effective competition" part is a lie, these people are always desperate to redefine the landscape in order to pretend that there is none.

The second problem is that when they do go the "bootstraps" method and create an alternative, it’s always done with an obsession over creating a right-wing echo chamber over basic competence. Which invariably leads to an unusable mess populated solely by people who got kicked off mainstream sites for their abhorrent behaviour, so they fail because not even they want to hang around exclusively with people like them.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Glad To Help

Oh, you’re so close, now you just need to realize and admit to why platforms like Twitter are so much more popular than the ones filled to the brim with assholes and lunatics and you’ll be able to figure out why(as if you don’t already know) there might be such a disparity of user numbers…

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Glad To Help

There is no effective competition. Twitter’s monthly active user count …

Facebook, Reddit, TikTok, Gab, Parler, Youtube, Instagram, Snapchat, WeChat, Pinterest, Twitch, Imgur, WhatsApp, QQ, Tumblr, LinkedIn, PornHub, Telegram, FourSquare, MySpace, DeviantArt, Flickr, Meetup, YuBo, etc.

And those are just the ones that I can come up with off the top of my head.

Now tell me how size should have anything to do with it as Walmart is bigger than any of it’s competitors, but guess what, it still has plenty of competition.

Oh, and by the way Koby, FUCK YOU for calling Jan 6 a "kerfuffle"!!!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Glad To Help

"Social media does not need regulating as their is plenty of competition, Gettr, gab, Parler, Bitchute, blog comment sections etc."

Look up the market shares of Standard Oil and Bell Telephone at the time they were broken up and compare that with Big Tech and their respective niches. It isn’t even close.

Standard Oil had 65% of the market when it was ordered broken up in 1911.

The Capital "L" Libertarian argument precludes there every being a monopoly. This is because Libertarians are so stupid that if a company Global Widget Co owns every widget factory and every widget retailer so long as there is one guy making widgets in their garage and selling them on a street corner Global Widget Co is not a literal monopoly.

Yes "L"ibertarians are that stupid!

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Glad To Help

Hey Chozen,

First, I would like to remind you of how stupid you are when you confused "public house", a pub, for public housing!!

Second, who is forcing you to use Twitter?

Bell telephone was the only phone company and we were all forced to use their service.

See the difference or do I need to spend some more time schooling you?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Glad To Help

"Second, who is forcing you to use Twitter?"

Who is forcing me to use sprint? I have far more phone choices than I do social media choices. There is more scarcity in the social media market than there is in the phone market and far more scarcity than there was when the scarcity rational was the legal reasoning for TV, radio, and cable content regulation like the fairness doctirne.

I’d love to have a scarcity rational argument today over social media regulation. 2021 Google, Facebook, Twitter. 1949 NBC, CBC, ABC, DTN, and one large regional, WGN etc. Absolutely lets have that scarcity rational argument.

"Bell telephone was the only phone company and we were all forced to use their service."

What decade were you born in child? By 1984 that was not the case. Bell was limited to 85% market share by the FCC but bell wasn’t close to that cap by 1984. If only google was limited to 85% market share.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

The only reason you think such scarcity exists is because you’re only looking at “Big Tech”. But plenty of smaller services exist, and plenty of people use them every day. And plenty of communication services that most people don’t think of as “social media services” also exist⁠—Discord, Slack, Zoom, Skype, imageboards like 4chan, old school phpBB forums, and God knows how many others.

If you want to communicate with others, you can do so outside of Twitter and Facebook. That you’re obsessed with them in the way you are tells me that you’re not upset that they’re so big⁠—you’re upset that they’re big enough that they don’t need you and whatever bullshit you’d bring to the table. But those services don’t owe you a spot. You’re not entitled to one, either.

The First Amendment protects your rights to speak freely and associate with whomever you want. It doesn’t give you the right to make others listen. It doesn’t give you the right to make others give you access to an audience. And it doesn’t give you the right to make a personal soapbox out of private property you don’t own. Nobody is entitled to a platform or an audience at the expense of someone else. That goes equally as much for me as it does for you. When you can learn to live with that fact, you might be worth talking to. In the meantime: You need to shut the fuck up when grown folks are talking, you sweet summer child.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

and associate with whomever you want.

Shouldn’t that be with whoever will accept your company, as their complaint is that cannot associate with who they want because they are banned from major social media sites.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Glad To Help

Who is forcing me to use sprint? I have far more phone choices than I do social media choices. There is more scarcity in the social media market than there is in the phone market

From my earlier tweet:

Facebook, Reddit, TikTok, Gab, Parler, Youtube, Instagram, Snapchat, WeChat, Pinterest, Twitch, Imgur, WhatsApp, QQ, Tumblr, LinkedIn, PornHub, Telegram, FourSquare, MySpace, DeviantArt, Flickr, Meetup, YuBo, etc.

Can you seriously tell me you have more choices for phone service then the above non exhaustive list of social media services? Please tell me where you live, as here where I live in downtown Seattle, a major tech hub, I have two choices for phone service, CenturyLink and Comcast.

But the one thing you seem to constantly overlook, nobody is forcing you to use social media. Having phone service is essential, try reporting a fire on Twitter and see if the fire department responds before your house burns down. Call 911 and compare the difference in response time.

You are not owed a spot on social media any more than you are owed an opinion column in the NY Times or primetime opinion show on Fox News. That you feel you are owed a spot on social media is the same as me being owed a spot to take a shit on your living room floor.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Glad To Help

Well, if those ‘alternate services’ aren’t seeing as much traffic as Twitter or Facebook, you need to consider the people on them – a bunch of assholes like you. That’s the problem – no one wants to associate with you whiny pathetic losers.

Care to guess why?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Glad To Help

More speech is clearly not an abridgment of speech.

Bollocks, telling someone ‘you will host this speech’ is a blatant abridgement, but if that’s the way you want things then by that metric cesspits like Parler and GETTR should be prohibited from moderating speech and punished if they do so I’m sure you’ll be totally consistent on that and be just as vehemently against their efforts to do so in their respective articles lest you expose yourself as a grossly dishonest hypocrite.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Glad To Help

As long as there’s competition, coffee at every other restaurant and grocery store and gas station, then we can rest easy. But if they were ever to become the dominant source of all coffee in the nation, then yes.

If you think Twitter is the dominant source of all conversation in the nation, you’re so ignorant you should really reconsider your life choices. Twitter is tiny compared to many others. I mean, in terms of global stats it doesn’t even show up on charts: https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/most-popular-social-media-platforms But if you’re just talking about the US, it’s dwarfed by Facebook and Instagram. Reddit, Pinterest & TikTok are all similarly sized.

Under no possible definition does Twitter control all speech.

I mean, Starbucks is FAR more dominant than Twitter.

More speech is clearly not an abridgment of speech.

Dude. Koby. Koby. Serioulsy. Dude. COMPELLED HOSTING OF SPEECH VIOLATES THE 1st AMENDMENT’S PROHIBITION ON COMPELLED ASSOCIATION WITH SPEECH. How long until it gets through your thick head?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Glad To Help

"Yes, but forcing me to HOST your speech is absolutely a violation of the 1st Amendment."

Stop exaggerating. A super market can and is forced to host speech. A cable company can and is forced to host speech. A telecom can and is forced to host speech.

This isn’t as cut and dry and your exaggerations make it out to be. Have a real argument about the real world and stop your religious the bull@%^.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

A supermarket is under no obligation to host your speech in any part of the store, including windows and doors, that isn’t designated for third-party speech. You can’t go down the aisles and tape “this tastes like shit” signs to whatever food you hate, then tell the supermarket that it must keep those signs up “or else”. They will metaphorically throw you out for doing that⁠—and if you resist with violence, it’s likely that you’ll be literally thrown out by either the cops or some customers who don’t give a fuck about whether they hurt you (or your feelings).

A cable company is under no legal obligation to carry your speech if you send them a video manifesto of why Twilight is a better love story than Titanic. (Spoilers: Deadpool is a better love story than both of them combined.)

A telecom is under no obligation to host your speech under any circumstances. While it may offer you space on the Internet as part of your service package, it has every right to revoke that privilege if you abuse it⁠.

Show me the directly on-point law, statute, or “common law” court ruling that spells out, in detailed and unambiguous terms, what third-party speech the government can compel any corporation, public accomodating business, or interactive web service to host.

I’ll wait.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Glad To Help

Stop exaggerating. A super market can and is forced to host speech. A cable company can and is forced to host speech. A telecom can and is forced to host speech.

My wife owned a restaurant, and there was some speech that she was forced to host.

The Equal Employment Opportunity sign which basically said that she could not discriminate against protected classes w.r.t. employment.

She also had to have Department of Health notices about employees washing their hands before returning work, displaying health inspections and certifications about health and safety training.

And the liquor board required signage about not serving people who appear to be intoxicated, her alcohol licenses, etc.

But you want to know something that you seem to be too fucking stupid to understand? She did not have to host any speech that a random person wanted displayed. You could come in with any type of "flyer," "signage," "banner," etc, and there is nothing in this country that could force her to display your speech. It was her decision, and her’s alone, if she wanted to "host" anybody else’s speech. And some she did, community events, HS theatre events, but it was still HER decision and you could not FORCE her to give you a place for your speech.

Why don’t you people understand that you do NOT have a right to speak on other people’s property. It does not belong to you, and there is nothing written down in any local, state or federal law that requires a private property owner to give you space on their private property that would allow your speech. PERIOD. And it does not matter how big they are, it doesn’t make a fucking difference. Go into a McD’s and try to force them to put your speech / flyers in their windows, or a Walmart and force them to allow you to stand in the middle of the store with a bull horn talking politics.

In other words, yes, the gov’t can compel a very limited amount of speech on a private business, as I described with a restaurant. But that does not give you the right to demand that YOUR speech must be hosted as well.

Also, can I point out one more time how you are so fucking stupid that you didn’t understand that a "public house" meant a pub, and not public housing as you thought it did. And I will never let you forget that.

Chozen says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Glad To Help

"In other words, yes, the gov’t can compel a very limited amount of speech on a private business, as I described with a restaurant. But that does not give you the right to demand that YOUR speech must be hosted as well."

If the government passes a law such as that which exists within the state of California or as Florida has passed yes I do. The power of the state to regulate that in the public interest is broad.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help

"I believe that something ubiquitous can become a public utility."

Your belief is irrelevant on several levels. Internet access might be considered a public utility. A platform anyone can create is not.
And "ubiquitous" is not by far enough to make something a public utility. According to THAT argument milk, dollars, and shoes would have to be considered public utilities as well.

Speaker’s Corner is open unto all. You still can’t force someone else to give you their soapbox and bullhorn. It’s as repugnant a mindset as claiming that everyone who is richer than you need to give you their money.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Bloof (profile) says:

With Facebook, there is a very real thumb on the scales to push it in favour of conservative content, Joel Kaplan is there blocking any attempt to correct the broken system that Shapiro and Bongino exploit and make sure conspiracy theory content is always there waiting to radicalise grandma, and even that isn’t enough for the right. They want to live in a world where conservatives are a protected class, where they can ignore terms of service or better yet, structure them to punish critics, and people are forced by law to give them an audience. Anything other than sitting down and shutting up while they scream and shout and declare how their political opponents need to die is anti conservative bias and infringing on their free speech.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
WarioBarker (profile) says:

A cause of action to empower Americans. For far too long, Big Tech has been able to censor the views of conservatives with effectively no recourse available to those affected. This proposal would create a statutory basis for Americans to directly challenge Big Tech in court for its censorship and silencing of conservatives.

It’s almost as if they’re saying "American = Conservative", which is about as accurate as saying Dump won the 2020 election.

Congress passed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to allow internet platforms to moderate unlawful or offensive content on their platforms. Big Tech has exploited this protection to make subjective content moderation decisions, often in a manner harmful to conservative voices.

Because clearly there isn’t well-documented evidence of "conservative voices" posting "unlawful or offensive content" on those platforms. And that’s not even getting into the misunderstanding (intentional or not) of Section 230 for…what, the 8,675,309th time now?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

I made a comment on a RWW YouTube video about how Rick Wiles wants platforms to allow him to advocate for a 2nd Holocaust and it got autodeleted, apparently for the word Holocaust since I used no profanity. If you did call Wiles a fucking lunatic it probably wouldn’t delete it. But if you post "you are a fucking lunatic" it is autodeleted for personal attacks. Their automoderator is an aggressive mindless beast and boy does it have issues with the liberal shit I post.

I guess my question is how do I flip this egregious violation of my rights (/s, just in case) into an extensive grifting campaign?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"I guess my question is how do I flip this egregious violation of my rights (/s, just in case) into an extensive grifting campaign?"

Abandon all semblance of reason and rationality, holler persistently about how the liberal child-traffickers stole the election under the command of the Kenyan Muslim and hid the ballots of honest americans in the basement of Hillary’s Pizza Parlor while Big Tech intimidated all right-thinking christians into silence by torching California using the Jewish Space Lasers.

The 30% of the american citizenry still voting Trump will be falling all over themselves stuffing their last dollars into your war chest.

ECA (profile) says:

Wow, this seems popular.

"Over 90 percent of search happens on Google and 90 percent of users drop off after first-page results."

Love this line.
Anyone ever go into a Newspaper store, that has 100’s of newspapers to select? If you know what you want you can find it all?
If you have gone in 1 time and seen all of this and walked out with Nothing, Join the crowd.

Nation of change, sent me a letter on THEIR SIDE. and seems that they are joining the Other side. They have jumped to the idea of Ad revenue, and who gets it. And that they have been cut back as FB and google arent linking to them as much.

The internet is as Bad as TV, in that we have 200+ channels and our fav shows, all come on at about the same time. ANd its not easy recording this anymore, cause the corps wont let a DECENT TV recorder come to market.
How much Balanced news can a person read in a day, and not get confused. We are on a School yard of kids playing and cant decide what we want to do.

Finding a site that agrees with you, Finding a site that Isnt opinionated, Finding a site that gets to the point and Finds abit of truth in the story. ISNT EASY.
Who wants to watch politics, play Catch with responsibility??

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

A most telling talking point

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act would be changed to limit liability protections for moderation of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment and would preclude Big Tech from discriminating against Americans based on their political affiliation.

‘As a reminder racism is constitutionally protected speech.

Sexism is constitutionally protected speech.

Arguing in favor of torturing gays until they ‘give up their sinful ways’, constitutionally protected speech.

Claiming that the nazis had the right idea and it’s a shame they were stopped before they could really do something about those shifty jews, constitutionally protected speech.

Saying that vaccines not only don’t work they actively make things worse? You guessed it, constitutionally protected speech.

Anyone who tries to argue that platforms should limit themselves to only excluding unconstitutional speech is arguing that all of the above and more should be exempt from moderation.’

(I’m just going to save my comment to the quotes folder at this point, with how often this dishonest and stupid talking point is being used I imagine I’m going to be breaking out the counter-argument a lot…)

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

restless94110 (profile) says:

Correction

House Republican’s Entire ‘Big Tech’ Platform Is ‘We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies’

Correction: House Republican’s Entire Big Tech [No need to put the truth in quotes] Is ‘We Must Force Big Tech to Honor The First Amendment’

There. Fixed it for ya.

Remember: a ‘conspiracy theory’ is just a theory that a country with Free Speech honors by allowing. Countless conspiracy theories have been proven true. Remember: Who judges what is a lie? Is it the Court of Public Opinion via Free Expression? Or is it some writer at Tech Dirt?

Who would anyone with even half a brain choose? I’ll take Freedom of Expression & Speech over some prejudiced writer at Tech Dirt every single minute of every single day.

And so would, anyone who believes in the First Amendment as it applies throughout the entire American society. No more nitpicking.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Correction

We Must Force Big Tech to Honor The First Amendment

Big Tech isn’t bound by the First Amendment. The government is. And by doing this, the government is violating it.

Who judges what is a lie? Is it the Court of Public Opinion via Free Expression?

Definitely not the Court of Public Opinion. Can you imagine what things would be like if fact or falsehood was determined by public sentiment?

Oh no, Ted Bundy couldn’t possibly be a serial killer, he’s far too charming.

That loner down the street accused of kidnapping kids? I always knew there was something up with him. What’s that? He wasn’t even in the city when the kidnapping occurred? Clearly that just shows how diabolical he really is.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Correction

Is it the Court of Public Opinion via Free Expression?

Free expression has nothing to do whether something is or isn’t a lie. Take for example, flat-earthers…I see no reason to entertain the speech of those window lickers, as I am certain that the Earth is an oblique spheroid, and not flat.

Now they can believe whatever the fuck they want, but don’t expect me to take their ‘free expression’ seriously. In fact, I’d be more inclined to ridicule them, since a simple test of their ‘theory’ would be to count the folks that have fallen off the edge.

Now substitute ‘delusional conservative’ for ‘flat-earther,’ and with a little effort, try to understand. Just because you believe it doesn’t make it true. Just ask all the dipshits sitting in jail because they believed they were commanded by Trump to storm the Capitol.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Correction

‘We Must Force Big Tech to Honor The First Amendment’

Since when did "Big Tech" become part of the US government such that needs to be bound by the 1st Amendment?

Did you even take a civics class while in school? I mean seriously, how stupid does one have to be to think that the 1st Amendment applies to private businesses.

Oh wait, there are several of you just in this comment section alone.

Please do us all a favor, check into taking US history, civics, and US government classes at your local community college or adult learning center. You’ll end up a better person and then we won’t have to listen to the incredible bullshit that keeps coming out of your keyboards.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Correction

Correction: House Republican’s Entire Big Tech [No need to put the truth in quotes] Is ‘We Must Force Big Tech to Honor The First Amendment’

They DO honor the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment forbids the gov’t from passing laws restricting speech or association. That’s why companies get to moderate how they see fit. What you want — and what the GOP is pitching here — is the exact opposite. It’s a law regarding speech that would clearly violate the 1st Amendment.

Tell me, "restless" why do you hate the 1st Amendment?

Who judges what is a lie? Is it the Court of Public Opinion via Free Expression? Or is it some writer at Tech Dirt?

What does this have to do with anything?

I’ll take Freedom of Expression & Speech over some prejudiced writer at Tech Dirt every single minute of every single day.

So… you don’t support free speech at all. You support compelled speech, which is the exact opposite of free speech.

And so would, anyone who believes in the First Amendment as it applies throughout the entire American society. No more nitpicking.

No one’s nitpicking. We’re supporting the 1st Amendment, while you’re setting it on fire because people don’t support your ideas in the marketplace of ideas. Your ideas are toxic. And that’s on you, you ignorant fool.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen says:

"Since when did "Big Tech" become part of the US government such that needs to be bound by the 1st Amendment?"

Since when did the first duty of government become something other than defending its citizens from private aggression?

You claimed Capital "L" Libertarians have forgotten exactly why we have government in the first place.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"Since when did the first duty of government become something other than defending its citizens from private aggression?"

Since the constitution was written, including the first amendment that makes any attempt to control the speech of private platforms something that’s forbidden to them. I thought "libertarians" would believe in the free market, not direct government control of private property when they indulge in speech you don’t agree with?

But, given that you think that people have to call the cops in order to get an agent of the government remove an unruly guest from your home, your grasp on how these things work is not very strong.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Since when did the first duty of government become something other than defending its citizens from private aggression?

Considering you are too stupid to know the difference between a public house (a pub) and public housing, it makes perfect sense that you would make a stupid fucking statement such as that.

Please, follow the advice from one of the earlier comments and go back to school to learn about the constitution and how our government works.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Since when did the first duty of government become something other than defending its citizens from private aggression?

Someone saying "I don’t want you acting like an asshole in my house, you need to leave now," is not, and has never been "private aggression." The "private aggression" is the asshole demanding that he be allowed to stay and to annoy everyone else (hint: that’s you. You. You’re the asshole. Now go away).

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen says:

Re: Re: Re:

"You’re the asshole. Now go away"

My response would "be make me." And if I were in your house and had not used force and you laid one hand on me I would sue you for every dime you have left. Unlike you I have a real life. I’ve am a landlord. I’ve worked security when I was in college. I have worked and do work in heavily regulated private industries. I know the rules. You are a think tank wonk. You have never worked a day in your life.

You scream Libertarian absolutes from you ivory tower but your religion … and that is what it is your religion … isn’t the real world and never has been. You scream you cant tell private property what to do. But government has been doing that since there was government.

We have been regulating ferries, common carriers, hackmen, bakers, millers, wharfingers, innkeepers, etc. etc. etc. since time immemorial. Regulation of the private that is in the public interest goes all the way back to the Code of Hammurabi.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

My response would "be make me." And if I were in your house and had not used force and you laid one hand on me I would sue you for every dime you have left

And as soon as you were told to leave and didn’t, you would be trespassing. Are you claiming now that a property owner cannot use force to remove trespassers? I’m pretty sure that homeowners, bar bouncers, and "castle doctrine" laws disagree with you.

Chozen says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I’ve been a bouncer. No you cant. You can risk it, many do. You can hope that the cops will be happy you just made their job easier but in the back of your mind you know its illegal.

Just because you have seen people speeding and getting away with it doesn’t make speeding legal.

If its a dive bar as people have used as an example. Yes lots of bouncers at dive bars use physical force on the assumption that the patron doesn’t know the law. But you won’t see that @#%^ at an expensive night club. Its too big a risk that the kid has an army of mommy and daddy’s lawyers behind him.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Mel Frasern says:

We need GOP 230

The last time I checked Nazi speech or speech about the effects are protected by the 1st amendment. Look Techdirt I am sorry, I read your site often and totally disagree. Wyden Cox must be changed to the Republican section 230. Too bad of an 8 year old girl learns the Nazi national anthem. It’s free speech and that is protected. We will win Techdirt. Watch out. The right will triumph

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...