Almost guaranteed to be used to selectively prosecute.
All laws in the USA; as is tradition.
DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation
31–40 of 392 posts
Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation
#32I think that’s fine to ask social medias to choose between being a publisher or a platform. It’s perfectly fine to push your point of view online as it’s protected by the first. But you should bare consequences for the cases not protected by the first.
1A protects you from the government. It has no relevance to free speech among persons and corporations.
Why is speech the only part of 1A that gets this treatment? You wouldn't say the same thing about religion
Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation
#33It looks like this makes service providers liable for illegal content if they do not keep logs for 1 year? Am I reading that correctly?
Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you understand the first amendment.
Enlight us. For example, calling for the murders of specific people based on their political views or races don’t fall under the first. And social medias allow the spread of some of these messages with no consequences at the moment.
how is that not protected under the first amendment?
Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation
#35I think that the title is correct but it is not very descriptive of what it is about for people having a look at it. Tldr quote from it: "We therefore urge Congress to make these necessary reforms to Section 230 and begin to hold online platforms accountable both when they unlawfully censor speech and when they knowingly facilitate criminal activity online.”
Online platforms "censoring" speech was never unlawful. What section 230 did was protect them from liability over speech that they did not censor. E.g., if I posted a libelous comment about you in the comments section of an online platform, section 230 protected the online platform from being sued by you for libel over my comment.
Weakening the 230 protections will do nothing to encourage platforms to censor less. Indeed, it will have the opposite effect.
I haven't read the proposal, but if it goes beyond just weakening 230 and instead tries to say platforms cannot censor speech, then it won't get past the First Amendment.
Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you understand the first amendment.
Enlight us. For example, calling for the murders of specific people based on their political views or races don’t fall under the first. And social medias allow the spread of some of these messages with no consequences at the moment.
That's not exactly true.
"Speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely."
Someone randomly spouting off that people of a race or ideology should be wiped out doesn't always/exactly pass this legal test.
Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation
#37If they would like to investigate social media for anti-conservative bias, does that mean it'd be okay for attorney general of other states to investigate Fox News for bias, or Breitbart? Of course not.
[deleted]
Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation
#38I think that’s fine to ask social medias to choose between being a publisher or a platform. It’s perfectly fine to push your point of view online as it’s protected by the first. But you should bare consequences for the cases not protected by the first.
Heck, I think it's fine for entities to be both, but recognize the need for special rules allocated to individual companies that reach a certain level of subjective public-space-y-ness
If our concerns are facebook, instagram, reddit, and maybe 20 others, let's not constrain ourselves with fundamental rules that try to group them in with an obscure independent forum site that houses a few hundred members
Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
1A protects you from the government. It has no relevance to free speech among persons and corporations.
Why is speech the only part of 1A that gets this treatment? You wouldn't say the same thing about religion
The same is 100% true about religion.
1A does not give you protection from religious discrimination among persons and corporations.
It is the Civil Rights Act that does.
Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was just about to say... > when they knowingly facilitate criminal activity online. Does this include the criminal misinformation campaigns the GOP love to quote as free speech? What justifies criminality? And WTF is the justice department doing writing laws? That’s outside their jurisdiction. Congress writes laws. But I guess when your political party owns congress, the White House, and the justice department... y…
They are proposing legislation. Congress would have to adopt it into a bill. Doesn't mean it's going to happen, or that it will pass. But anyone can write a letter to Congress and propose legislation. You and I would likely get a nice pat on the head and an auto-signed letter, but we can do it. The DoJ is on step 1: https://www.usa.gov/how-laws-are-made They simply have a louder podium to announce their idea.
Yeah, I know how laws are made, it just shocks me that it's coming direct from the DOJ, quoting the administration.