Get Your Otherwise Objectionable Gear Before The Senate Takes It Away!

from the what-timing dept

Get your Otherwise Objectionable gear in the Techdirt store on Threadless »

On Monday we released our line of Otherwise Objectionable gear in our store on Threadless and, the very next day, GOP Senators unveiled their latest attempt at truly stupid Section 230 reform: a bill that would remove those two critical words from the law. Of course, those who understand how important Section 230's moderation protections are to the internet will fight to prevent this bill from passing, and then there's the fact that it's pretty obviously unconstitutional — but while the fight continues, there's never been a better time to declare your Otherwise Objectionable status with pride.

As usual, there's a wide variety of gear available in this and other designs — including t-shirts, hoodies, notebooks, buttons, phone cases, mugs, stickers, and of course the now-standard face masks. Check out all our designs and items in the Techdirt store on Threadless!

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: gear, otherwise objectionable


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Tim R (profile), 13 Sep 2020 @ 12:17pm

    Here's something that's somewhat marginally related, but I thought still interesting on the front of Section 230, and the illusion that the FCC has anything to do with it.

    I'm currently studying for my amateur radio license, and one of the sample questions on the test is this:

    Question: "Who is accountable should a repeater inadvertently retransmit communications that violate the FCC rules"
    Layman Translation: "Who is accountable should a piece of automated equipment that simply relays information relay something that breaks the rules."

    Correct Answer: "The control operator of the originating station"
    Layman Translation: "The person who said it"

    Even in examinations that verify that a person understands Part 97 (Amateur Radio Service) of Title 47 (Telecommunications) (1) of the US Code of Federal Regulations, the FCC understands liability correctly. If they were to say any differently about Section 230, it might sound a little, I don't know, disingenuous...

    (1) Section 97.205(g): The control operator of a repeater that retransmits inadvertently communications that violate the rules in this part is not accountable for the violative communications.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Another Kevin (profile), 14 Sep 2020 @ 9:13am

    I'd have to check on the regulatory history of 47 USC 97.205(g).

    It used to be that the control operator of a repeater was indeed responsible for monitoring what went over the repeater, and in cases of abuse, being able to silence the abuser via a control link. (And could still be held responsible for the first F-bomb to drop. Surprisingly, I don't know of any repeater system that was designed with the infamous 7-second delay to give a control op time to react.) The control operator of the repeater and the control operator of the originating station were jointly and severally responsible.

    The FCC enforcement of Amateur Radio, back then, was relatively friendly; 'self-policing' was a concept. The exception cases (the first F-bomb drops before the operator can command the control link) were handled with selective enforcement. The regulatory environment got considerably more adversarial over time, and obviously in a hostile environment, 'you are responsible for what someone else said.' is an unsustainable posture. I'm glad they fixed that part.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.