281–290 of 386 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Freedom of speech is also freedom from compelled speech." Uh, aren't for example nutritional labels a form of compelled speech?
Consumer protection laws are written in blood. You can't leave arsenic out of your ingredients list any more than I can call myself a doctor and tell you to start eating roofing tar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a bizarre doublethink at work here, where people claim at the same time that social media companies should not be held responsible for speech on their platforms, hence section 230, but also that that speech is "their speech", hence forcing them to host speech is compelled speech. If it's their speech, they should be held responsible for it. If it's not, it's not compelled speech to force them to host it.
The entire rationale for section 230 was to allow online services to exercise editorial control over user-generated content — to not be a neutral host of all legal content — while also not holding them civilly liable as a publisher with certain narrow exceptions (but also leaving them criminally liable for anything that would carry criminal liability.) So what you are suggesting is so e kind of doublethink blending s…
I don't disagree with that and I don't see how it refutes my comment.
> But the choice to sell books (e.g., distributors) has, like the situation of online UGC service providers, always carried lesser liability than publication, but the choice to carry or not carry particular books is still a First Amendment activity.
Unlike online UGC service providers, bookstores can be forced to remove defamatory books[1] in the US. There's a reason there's a law specifically for UGC service providers, and you cannot defend this while at the same time demanding that they get treated like book stores when it comes to compelled speech.
[1]: https://eu.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2019/01/30/online-g...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a distinction between website and the quoted "social media services".
Really? Define it then. Facebook is a website by all technical terms. Where is the hard defined line between social media services and a website? What is a website that hosts a forum? What is Discord? What if I run a WordPress website with the BuddyPress plugin? What about comments on my blog articles?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a distinction between website and the quoted "social media services".
Really? Define it then. Facebook is a website by all technical terms. Where is the hard defined line between social media services and a website? What is a website that hosts a forum? What is Discord? What if I run a WordPress website with the BuddyPress plugin? What about comments on my blog articles?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one sensible is accusing "the Polish state" or "the Polish people" of being involved with the Holocaust, and the Wikipedia page itself doesn't state anything like that. The law is aimed at hateful idiocy like talking about the supposed "Polish death camps", as opposed to the tragically real Nazi death camps in Nazi-occupied Poland.
The wikipedia page I linked to clearly points out that polish people WERE involved in the holocaust. Not all, in fact I believe the vast majority of poles were not collaborators... but that doesn't mean this law doesn't make it legally sketchy to talk about the poles who were collaborators
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The entire rationale for section 230 was to allow online services to exercise editorial control over user-generated content — to not be a neutral host of all legal content — while also not holding them civilly liable as a publisher with certain narrow exceptions (but also leaving them criminally liable for anything that would carry criminal liability.) So what you are suggesting is so e kind of doublethink blending s…
> The entire rationale for section 230 was to allow online services to exercise editorial control over user-generated content — to not be a neutral host of all legal content — while also not holding them civilly liable as a publisher with certain narrow exceptions (but also leaving them criminally liable for anything that would carry criminal liability.) I don't disagree with that and I don't see how it refutes my co…
Sure I can, since the plain text of the law in question only removes publisher (which are not notice-based), not the notice-based obligations and liability of a distributor. As the article you cite here argues, the extension of 230 beyond what it says on its face to also remove those distributor-style liabilities is a strained interpretation that some courts have adopted that lacks support in the text of the law and is explicitly at odds with it's legislative history and rationale.
So it's quite easy to support the law that exists for UGC service providers and demand they get treated like bookstores and other distributors as regards notice-based removal of defamatory content because that's exactly what application of the law as written does.
The debate over 230 is not, mainly, about this one area where some courts have applied it out of line with it's plain text.
Normal people can't host content themselves. In theory they may, but their home Internet connection does not have public IP because of cgNAT, and they need to bow down to DNS registrar to make their website work. Attacking web hosters (e.g. AWS) and DNS registrars is the primary way to silence free speech, yet this bill does nothing about that.
If Polish really need freedom speech on Internet, they have to mandate public IP addresses and disallow non-commerce clauses for all ISPs. And shield DNS registrars from responsibility for actions of their clients. Those things would be enforceable. This law isn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Rights” are what other human beings agree to recognize. That’s just the nature of law as a construct. What the federal courts in America have done is set themselves up as a tribunal of elites for deciding moral issues that other countries decide democratically. This unsurprisingly causes a lot of friction. Same sex marriage actually wasn’t one of those areas—US opinion and that in other developed countries wasn’t fa…
A difference between us and Europe is that our country was founded on maintaining a separation between the state (which runs the schools we're talking about) and religion, and Germany wasn't. The entire premise of the Constitution --- really of any constitution --- is to insulate those kinds of governing principles from public opinion.
On what basis are people to make decisions if not by some set of moral axioms?
Freedom of speech is also freedom from compelled speech. This kind of law means the government can compel any private party to speak what they want and punish them for not doing so. This is also demonstrably damaging to the effected party. It costs money to host content. Forcing a business to host content costs them - is poland going to fund this? No. If the polish government has a problem with it then they should ma…
There's a bizarre doublethink at work here, where people claim at the same time that social media companies should not be held responsible for speech on their platforms, hence section 230, but also that that speech is "their speech", hence forcing them to host speech is compelled speech. If it's their speech, they should be held responsible for it. If it's not, it's not compelled speech to force them to host it.