Trump to use Executive order to censor Internet.

[Deplorable Me]

Of course this is bullshit but lefty will keep putting out rumors until trouble starts. Lies about the first amendment, lies about the second amendment. Be a bitch if the first amendment was limited to truth only.

Trump Executive Order to 'censor the Internet' denounced as dangerous and unconstitutional - Democratic Underground

 

[Deplorable Me]

Leaked draft of Trump Executive Order to ‘censor the Internet’ denounced as dangerous and unconstitutional

Original story.

 

[Phazer]

There is absolutely no constitutional basis for the federal government, or any governmental agency, to be involved in censoring written content.

If something is clearly criminal, prosecute. Otherwise, speech is to be unfettered even if it is obnoxious, hateful, or distasteful.

That said, it is clearly time to strip some of these massive social media companies of their "platform status" since they clearly exhibit editorial discretion. Yes, these companies have a private right to edit content on their sites. But, if they do, then they are therefore publishers and not platforms. As publishers, they necessarily assume responsibility for content on their sites and can be sued for copyright violations incurred by posts on their sites. THAT is what they need to have happen to them if they cease being real platforms (like a telephone company that does not edit what is said between parties and which cannot be sued because of what is said).

 

[libertysnake]

So, he's not wrong that social media websites go after and silence the voices of conservatives.

However, we should not interfere with private businesses. Instead, we should be coding our own "digital town squares" where freedom of speech is actually a thing, and then mercilessly point the finger at places like Facebook, and others, for their censorship; we should force their hand, by doing and by making a better, more free, internet.

Gab.ai tries to do this, but along with having a truly free platform it also draws a lot of hate groups as well well -- and hence, gets incorrectly labeled as a hate site.

 

[TEOTWAWKI inc.]

(&^%%$%#) + &^$%#@ &^65685#32313265558&)&^%^5543$^@$!13@#@454%$%$%!!!!!

 

[Celt]

There is absolutely no constitutional basis for the federal government, or any governmental agency, to be involved in censoring written content.

If something is clearly criminal, prosecute. Otherwise, speech is to be unfettered even if it is obnoxious, hateful, or distasteful.

That said, it is clearly time to strip some of these massive social media companies of their "platform status" since they clearly exhibit editorial discretion. Yes, these companies have a private right to edit content on their sites. But, if they do, then they are therefore publishers and not platforms. As publishers, they necessarily assume responsibility for content on their sites and can be sued for copyright violations incurred by posts on their sites. THAT is what they need to have happen to them if they cease being real platforms (like a telephone company that does not edit what is said between parties and which cannot be sued because of what is said).

I just learned something reading that. Thatnks Phazer!

 

[Darth]

Ehh, I’ve heard it many a time on here “Something needs to be done about Google, they censor X or Y!”

Censorship is always bad.

 

[Criticalt]

Ehh, I’ve heard it many a time on here “Something needs to be done about Google, they censor X or Y!”

Censorship is always bad.

I agree 100%
However, if these companies censor what is posted on their sites by allowing one groups content while deleting other groups content, they are acting as publishers.
So, the company themselves should be held accountable for slander, defamation of character.......
As it stands they cannot be held accountable because they claim to be just a platform for ALL speech and ideas.

 

[Darth]

I agree 100%
However, if these companies censor what is posted on their sites by allowing one groups content while deleting other groups content, they are acting as publishers.
So, the company themselves should be held accountable for slander, defamation of character.......
As it stands they cannot be held accountable because they claim to be just a platform for ALL speech and ideas.

If I sell you a billboard rental and you post lies on it, it is my fault how exactly?

 

[Criticalt]

If I sell you a billboard rental and you post lies on it, it is my fault how exactly?

Most billboard companies act as platforms. You post what you want and take any consequences that come with it. As long as its not a violent call to action, you post what you want.
If a billboard company censors what you post on their boards, then they can be held accountable because their policies allowed you to post lies.
Whether its right or not, those are the rules.

 

[Darth]

Most billboard companies act as platforms. You post what you want and take any consequences that come with it. As long as its not a violent call to action, you post what you want.
If a billboard company censors what you post on their boards, then they can be held accountable because their policies allowed you to post lies.
Whether its right or not, those are the rules.

“The rules” give us 10 round mags in NY.

Censorship is always bad.

 

[Phazer]

If I sell you a billboard rental and you post lies on it, it is my fault how exactly?

If you're willing to rent to anyone and not exert editorial discretion over what's posted, then you're not at fault. But, if you only rent to specific people and organizations that post messages that you find "acceptable" then you share in any harm from the message.

 

[Criticalt]

“The rules” give us 10 round mags in NY.

Censorship is always bad.

Again, I agree
But, no matter how much we wish or want things a certain way, the law IS there to stop us.
Im not saying its right, just the truth.
If you were to rent a platform based billboard and posted that Andrew Cuomo sexually molested you, Cuomo could sue you and a judge will not care what you wish or want.
I of course am vehemently against the 10 round limit on magazines.
But, a judge isnt gonna give a crap what I think when im convicted.

 

[Darth]

Again, I agree
But, no matter how much we wish or want things a certain way, the law IS there to stop us.
Im not saying its right, just the truth.
If you were to rent a platform based billboard and posted that Andrew Cuomo sexually molested you, Cuomo could sue you and a judge will not care what you wish or want.
I of course am vehemently against the 10 round limit on magazines.
But, a judge isnt gonna give a crap what I think when im convicted.

And considering we are discussing how things should be, not how they are, censorship is always bad.

It seems to be a theme on this forum that when there is a proposal that we disagree with , like Google censoring stuff, it's "fuck them and the horse they rode in on", but when it's something we agree with like "Trump to censor things", it's suddenly "I'm not saying it's right , but it's allowable in the law."

Can't have it both ways. A private company should be able to allow or not allow whatever they want. Not "well then they are acting as a publisher and...", no. That's blatantly obvious you just want things changed because you disagree with the message. Incredibly dangerous precedent.

"My kid died because he had a fever and I wrapped him in Saran wrap instead of taking him to a real doctor. NYGF should be held liable, they let that stuff be posted on their site!"

 

[Grimscale]

So let's start with the basics...
What part of this is censorship:
"the new rule “calls for the FCC to develop new regulations clarifying how and when the law protects social media websites when they decide to remove or suppress content on their platforms. Although still in its early stages and subject to change, the Trump administration’s draft order also calls for the Federal Trade Commission to take those new policies into account when it investigates or files lawsuits against misbehaving companies.”"


I don't see anything in there saying the .gov can approve or deny what is posted on a website. Only that they will take into account the behavior of the website's owners when some third party posts something to that website that is then considered "illegal".

 

[Deplorable Me]

So let's start with the basics...
What part of this is censorship:
"the new rule “calls for the FCC to develop new regulations clarifying how and when the law protects social media websites when they decide to remove or suppress content on their platforms. Although still in its early stages and subject to change, the Trump administration’s draft order also calls for the Federal Trade Commission to take those new policies into account when it investigates or files lawsuits against misbehaving companies.”"


I don't see anything in there saying the .gov can approve or deny what is posted on a website. Only that they will take into account the behavior of the website's owners when some third party posts something to that website that is then considered "illegal".

You have to understand how the left is twisting this to instigate trouble. Abuse of the First Amendment.

 

[BDinPutnam]

If you're willing to rent to anyone and not exert editorial discretion over what's posted, then you're not at fault. But, if you only rent to specific people and organizations that post messages that you find "acceptable" then you share in any harm from the message.

Under this model, is Masterpiece Cake Shop a "publisher" and subject to the same rules?

PS this whole thing is a good example of why Congress refusing to write clear and concise laws rather than delegating interpretation and implementation to executive agencies is a really, really bad thing. See also: pistol braces and bump stocks and the ATF.

 

[Criticalt]

And considering we are discussing how things should be, not how they are, censorship is always bad.

It seems to be a theme on this forum that when there is a proposal that we disagree with , like Google censoring stuff, it's "fuck them and the horse they rode in on", but when it's something we agree with like "Trump to censor things", it's suddenly "I'm not saying it's right , but it's allowable in the law."

Can't have it both ways. A private company should be able to allow or not allow whatever they want. Not "well then they are acting as a publisher and...", no. That's blatantly obvious you just want things changed because you disagree with the message. Incredibly dangerous precedent.

"My kid died because he had a fever and I wrapped him in Saran wrap instead of taking him to a real doctor. NYGF should be held liable, they let that stuff be posted on their site!"

Onxe again, im done with you.
You cannot have an adult conversation.
Why are you even involved with this site?
Ooooooh right, fetish.

 

[Phazer]

Under this model, is Masterpiece Cake Shop a "publisher" and subject to the same rules?

No. A private business owner can chose to do, or not do, business with whomever they like for whatever reason they decide suits them. Unless they break some law in the process, they should be left alone. I would also contend that any law that uses a government threat to compel a private citizen, in their own private business, that is not funded by the government, to engage in commerce with another person is an illegal and unconstitutional law.

 

[ManrisFrack]

And considering we are discussing how things should be, not how they are, censorship is always bad.

It seems to be a theme on this forum that when there is a proposal that we disagree with , like Google censoring stuff, it's "fuck them and the horse they rode in on", but when it's something we agree with like "Trump to censor things", it's suddenly "I'm not saying it's right , but it's allowable in the law."

Can't have it both ways. A private company should be able to allow or not allow whatever they want. Not "well then they are acting as a publisher and...", no. That's blatantly obvious you just want things changed because you disagree with the message. Incredibly dangerous precedent.

"My kid died because he had a fever and I wrapped him in Saran wrap instead of taking him to a real doctor. NYGF should be held liable, they let that stuff be posted on their site!"

I don't think you understand how this system works. The government isn't and wouldn't be censoring social media by considering them publishers. The system just allows people to sue publishers for things that are slanderous, libelous or violate copyrights. These things need not be political in nature. No one can sue platforms for these things. Generally, the distinction between publisher and platform is a court ruling based on the entity's behavior. If they restrict content beyond basic decency and legality, they are a publisher. If I own a picture of a sunset and someone else posts it to Facebook and Facebook is legally considered a publisher, I (a private entity, NOT .gov) could eventually sue Facebook for copyright violation if they ignored my cease and desist requests and left that picture up. As it is right now, I cannot sue Facebook for this behavior because they are considered a platform.

The reason social media sites are considered a platform is that it is written in LAW that they have platform protection even if they remove content that is “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” The ability of the courts to make the determination of platform or publisher was greatly hindered in response to someone successfully suing Prodigy for removing obscene material.

There is absolutely slander, libel and copyright violative material on Facebook right now. If a newspaper printed most of those things, the could and would be successfully sued. Newspapers are clearly publishers and as such, are entirely responsible for their content. No one sues Facebook for these things because they have been granted platform status by Section 230 and this is absolves them of liability for the content that they host. Basically the problem is that the internet companies are engaging in removing and suppressing political viewpoints. Normally this would clearly be classified as editorial or publisher type behavior. Completely legal but also carries the responsibility of making sure your content doesn't violate slander, libel or copyright laws. The catch is that the social media companies are betting that their lawyers can use "otherwise objectionable" to preserve the platform protection and thus defeat any slander, libel or copyright suits. The law was so poorly written that it has allowed internet companies to suppress political content without taking on the responsibility of upholding slander, libel and copyright protections.

I supposed you could be taking the position that slander, libel and copyright protections should be abolished? Not sure that allowing people to steal your work or print lies about you without fear of repercussion is consistent with libertarian views though; anarchist views, sure.

 

[ManrisFrack]

If "censorship is always bad," why do we let Google, Facebook and the rest get away with it?

 

[Darth]

If "censorship is always bad," why do we let Google, Facebook and the rest get away with it?

Because they have every right to. Much like they have every right to hold anti gun beliefs.

And it's bad.

 

[Darth]

Onxe again, im done with you.
You cannot have an adult conversation.
Why are you even involved with this site?
Ooooooh right, fetish.

Yes, I'm an ammosexual.

 

[@thewheels]

Google’s true origin partly lies in CIA and NSA research grants for mass surveillance

Google aint private.

 

[Darth]

I don't think you understand how this system works. The government isn't and wouldn't be censoring social media by considering them publishers. The system just allows people to sue publishers for things that are slanderous, libelous or violate copyrights. These things need not be political in nature. No one can sue platforms for these things. Generally, the distinction between publisher and platform is a court ruling based on the entity's behavior. If they restrict content beyond basic decency and legality, they are a publisher. If I own a picture of a sunset and someone else posts it to Facebook and Facebook is legally considered a publisher, I (a private entity, NOT .gov) could eventually sue Facebook for copyright violation if they ignored my cease and desist requests and left that picture up. As it is right now, I cannot sue Facebook for this behavior because they are considered a platform.

The reason social media sites are considered a platform is that it is written in LAW that they have platform protection even if they remove content that is “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” The ability of the courts to make the determination of platform or publisher was greatly hindered in response to someone successfully suing Prodigy for removing obscene material.

There is absolutely slander, libel and copyright violative material on Facebook right now. If a newspaper printed most of those things, the could and would be successfully sued. Newspapers are clearly publishers and as such, are entirely responsible for their content. No one sues Facebook for these things because they have been granted platform status by Section 230 and this is absolves them of liability for the content that they host. Basically the problem is that the internet companies are engaging in removing and suppressing political viewpoints. Normally this would clearly be classified as editorial or publisher type behavior. Completely legal but also carries the responsibility of making sure your content doesn't violate slander, libel or copyright laws. The catch is that the social media companies are betting that their lawyers can use "otherwise objectionable" to preserve the platform protection and thus defeat any slander, libel or copyright suits. The law was so poorly written that it has allowed internet companies to suppress political content without taking on the responsibility of upholding slander, libel and copyright protections.

I supposed you could be taking the position that slander, libel and copyright protections should be abolished? Not sure that allowing people to steal your work or print lies about you without fear of repercussion is consistent with libertarian views though; anarchist views, sure.

Are aren't exactly talking about copyright protection, but you seem to have Facebook completely wrong there ... Stuff is removed from Facebook for copyright all the time, as well as nature. Not that I agree with them doing it , I don't in fact , but they do.

 

[BDinPutnam]

Google’s true origin partly lies in CIA and NSA research grants for mass surveillance

Google aint private.

Correct.

It is a publically held company.

Stock ticker is GOOG.

Want to change the company policies? Acquire a controlling stake.

 

[Darth]

Google’s true origin partly lies in CIA and NSA research grants for mass surveillance

Google aint private.

Neither is Colt then, considering the contracts.

 

[Darth]

Correct.

It is a publically held company.

Stock ticker is GOOG.

Want to change the company policies? Acquire a controlling stake.

Publicly held company != public sector.

 

[BDinPutnam]

Publicly held company != public sector.

Who said it was?

Not me.

I dont think it's a utility nor is it a privately held company. Want to change the way its run? Buy it.

 

[Darth]

Who said it was?

Not me.

I dont think it's a utility nor is it a privately held company. Want to change the way its run? Buy it.

People on here get confused and think publicly traded = public sector. Not how it works.