Candace Owens to Sue Facebook Fact-Checker for Censoring Her Videos

[ChumpDumper]

Biden revealed his immediate Executive Orders - more foreigners

@ black Americans further buried down the ladder

either way you lose.

[FrostKing]

either way you lose.

I am above you on the progressive hierarchy

Enjoy, privileged slave owner

[ChumpDumper]

I am above you on the progressive hierarchy

If you declare your place on the progressive hierarchy, the progressives already defeated you.

If you're struggling with being a white man, that's just pathetic.

[Will Hunting]

[DMC]

Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider".

If the company is going to act as editors for the content, they could be in effect taking on responsibility as publishers for the content. Imagine your phone provider started doing this, bleeping out words and ending phone calls when you say things they don't find credible or acceptable. That too is a private business.

So if Twitter flags your post as misleading, you can sue them on the grounds that the tag is defamatory. Good luck proving that up

If Twitter becomes the arbiter of content, they could lose their exemption for lawsuits for things like defamation - they have illustrated they are willing and able to censor and tag content based on things other than legality. Your response is a strawman.

[DMC]

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, evaluating the case under the state's anti-discrimination law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, found that the bakery had discriminated against the couple and issued specific orders for the bakery. Following appeals within the state that affirmed the Commission's decision, the bakery took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips' rights to free exercise, and reversed the Commission's decision. The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, due to the complications of the Commission's lack of religious neutrality.

I guess we'd have to see how this played out in court.

[DMC]

The responsbility you're talking about is only concerning law infringement (copyright, defamation, incitement to hatred, xenophobia, pedophilia...), not political or philosophical views.

Facebook is just a website with its own TOS, like this board. Nobody forced you to register there and you accept the rules doing so. If you get banned from ST for infringing their TOS, you won't go sue their ass because you don't think they're "fair and equal"...

They're are plenty of right wing forums all over the web that will only accept people from their views. Should they been sued for not being "fair and equal"?

And let's be honest, Freedom of speech on Twitter and FB is huge.

Oh , I still got caught debating about nonsensical .

Defamation isn't illegal. It's a tort. But neither is xenophobia.

[spurraider21]

If Twitter becomes the arbiter of content, they could lose their exemption for lawsuits for things like defamation - they have illustrated they are willing and able to censor and tag content based on things other than legality. Your response is a strawman.

no, they wont. they would only be liable if they are the producer of the specific content at issue. it's not an all-or-nothing "are you a publisher or a platform" question, its specific to the communication itself

just because they choose to moderate some posts (lets say, people spamming n word have their tweet deleted) doesnt suddenly mean theyre liable for everything any other user can say

[DMC]

no, they wont. they would only be liable if they are the producer of the specific content at issue. it's not an all-or-nothing "are you a publisher or a platform" question, its specific to the communication itself

just because they choose to moderate some posts (lets say, people spamming n word have their tweet deleted) doesnt suddenly mean theyre liable for everything any other user can say

Not sure why you need strawman and bifurcation in your responses so much. The issue is being looked at now for the reasons I mentioned.

[spurraider21]

Defamation isn't illegal. It's a tort. But neither is xenophobia.

defamation is illegal. it's just not criminal.

[spurraider21]

Not sure why you need strawman and bifurcation in your responses so much. The issue is being looked at now for the reasons I mentioned.

you said twitter could lose its exemption from lawsuits under section 230, and i'm saying that it's not the case except for only the specific communication in question. ie if twitter flags a comment as false, they could be held liable if that warning label is in and of itself defamatory... but that doesnt suddenly mean theyve lost their general 230 protections

if i started a youtube channel tomorrow i'd also have protection under 230 if some head leaves a defamatory comment in my comment section. even if i have control over the comments through moderation, i wont be held liable for content produced by somebody else. there's nothing i could do that would cause me to lose that protection, generally.

[DMC]

defamation is illegal. it's just not criminal.

Ok thanks Philo. I thought I covered that with "tort", but get your money's worth from your degree.

[spurraider21]

Ok thanks Philo. I thought I covered that with "tort", but get your money's worth from your degree.

you said it wasnt illegal

[DMC]

you said twitter could lose its exemption from lawsuits under section 230, and i'm saying that it's not the case except for only the specific communication in question. ie if twitter flags a comment as false, they could be held liable if that warning label is in and of itself defamatory... but that doesnt suddenly mean theyve lost their general 230 protections

if i started a youtube channel tomorrow i'd also have protection under 230 if some head leaves a defamatory comment in my comment section. even if i have control over the comments through moderation, i wont be held liable for content produced by somebody else. there's nothing i could do that would cause me to lose that protection, generally.

Rationalize it all you want. Then comment once they've lost their immunity. I've learned that arguing with you is pointless since you don't respond to what was said, and instead paraphrase with strawman comments that are easier to attack.

[spurraider21]

Rationalize it all you want. Then comment once they've lost their immunity. I've learned that arguing with you is pointless since you don't respond to what was said, and instead paraphrase with strawman comments that are easier to attack.

you're just not liking the answers i'm giving.

there's simply no scenario the en y of twitter loses all 230 protections (no matter how flagrant any particular abuses are) absent an amendment of the statute. they just might not have immunity as to specific content at issue if it is found they were the ones who published said content. just because they have the ability to moderate comments doesnt mean they are going to start being treated as publishers of every tweet

[DMC]

you're just not liking the answers i'm giving.

there's simply no scenario the en y of twitter loses all 230 protections (no matter how flagrant any particular abuses are) absent an amendment of the statute. they just might not have immunity as to specific content at issue if it is found they were the ones who published said content. just because they have the ability to moderate comments doesnt mean they are going to start being treated as publishers of every tweet

"Your readers' comments, entries written by guest bloggers, tips sent by email, and information provided to you through an RSS feed would all likely be considered information provided by another content provider. This would mean that you would not be held liable for defamatory statements contained in it. However, if you selected the third-party information yourself, no court has ruled whether this information would be considered "provided" to you. One court has limited Section 230 immunity to situations in which the originator "furnished it to the provider or user under cir stances in which a reasonable person...would conclude that the information was provided for publication on the Internet...."

This is what I am referring to, this scenario. By selectively blocking or tagging posts as suspect, the service could be seen as selecting the content they accept, ergo pushing their own messages via filter. I think it would have to get down to specific cases and be illustrated that some censored/tagged comments were no more alarming than some others from the other side that were not tagged or censored. I think they could lose their immunity if they are producing a political message through censorship. Do they have the right? Sure, but that doesn't give them immunity.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justi...30-legislation

So this would be the only issue, not a 1st Amendment issue.

But no, you're responding to your own paraphrasing and strawman arguments unless you quote me directly.

[Spurtacular]

You ain't black (literally).

[Spurminator]

[spurraider21]

"Your readers' comments, entries written by guest bloggers, tips sent by email, and information provided to you through an RSS feed would all likely be considered information provided by another content provider. This would mean that you would not be held liable for defamatory statements contained in it. However, if you selected the third-party information yourself, no court has ruled whether this information would be considered "provided" to you. One court has limited Section 230 immunity to situations in which the originator "furnished it to the provider or user under cir stances in which a reasonable person...would conclude that the information was provided for publication on the Internet...."

This is what I am referring to, this scenario. By selectively blocking or tagging posts as suspect, the service could be seen as selecting the content they accept, ergo pushing their own messages via filter. I think it would have to get down to specific cases and be illustrated that some censored/tagged comments were no more alarming than some others from the other side that were not tagged or censored. I think they could lose their immunity if they are producing a political message through censorship. Do they have the right? Sure, but that doesn't give them immunity.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justi...30-legislation

So this would be the only issue, not a 1st Amendment issue.

But no, you're responding to your own paraphrasing and strawman arguments unless you quote me directly.

i never mentioned the first amendment, you're strawmanning now

and the language you quoted comes from the trump admins' proposal to amend the statute, which is specifically the caveat i gave in the post you just quoted

you're just not liking the answers i'm giving.

there's simply no scenario the en y of twitter loses all 230 protections (no matter how flagrant any particular abuses are) absent an amendment of the statute. they just might not have immunity as to specific content at issue if it is found they were the ones who published said content. just because they have the ability to moderate comments doesnt mean they are going to start being treated as publishers of every tweet

[DMC]

It's not a 1st Amendment issue. It's a "can they be sued for their content" issue.

So if Twitter flags your post as misleading, you can sue them on the grounds that the tag is defamatory. Good luck proving that up

i never mentioned the first amendment, you're strawmanning now

and the language you quoted comes from the trump admins' proposal to amend the statute, which is specifically the caveat i gave in the post you just quoted

Philo

[spurraider21]

Philo

Right. I never brought up first amendment. Thanks for confirming

[DMC]

Right. I never brought up first amendment. Thanks for confirming

But I did and it's what you first responded to

[spurraider21]

But I did and it's what you first responded to

So in that first post, you said it’s not a first amendment issue, it’s whether they can be sued. I then directly went into a discussion about the parameters by which they can be sued. Then after a long back and forth (where 1a didn’t come up) you randomly spit out that it’s not a first amendment issue

[pgardn]

So in that first post, you said it’s not a first amendment issue, it’s whether they can be sued. I then directly went into a discussion about the parameters by which they can be sued. Then after a long back and forth (where 1a didn’t come up) you randomly spit out that it’s not a first amendment issue

Its what he does.
Disingenuous.

[DMC]

So in that first post, you said it’s not a first amendment issue, it’s whether they can be sued. I then directly went into a discussion about the parameters by which they can be sued. Then after a long back and forth (where 1a didn’t come up) you randomly spit out that it’s not a first amendment issue

You paraphrase so ty. I said it's a "can they be sued" issue. Why even change my wording? Did they teach you that in law school, to create your own narrative to argue against when you cannot build an argument against the actual quote? I didn't ask if they could be sued and I didn't say it's whether or not they can be sued. Do they risk losing immunity by doing what they are doing, that's the issue. I didn't say they risk it. I said it's the issue. It is the issue as made apparent by the actions being suggested by the DOJ.

Just admit you're clueless and need to paraphrase because you don't communicate well.