41–50 of 392 posts
Earlier 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
As usual for Section 230 stuff, Mike Mansick at Techdirt has the thoughtful, sourced analysis - including all the players and a history of their past actions https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200921/22345845352/trump...
I 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.
[1] Lawyers hate small pockets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
I 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.
I 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.
This could destroy the tech oligopolies. This would tangle them in unlimited court cases allowing for smaller sites with smaller pockets [1] to flourish. I imagine they will fight this to the death - or drag it in court at least until November elections for a pro-Oligopoly (Biden) camp to take over. [1] Lawyers hate small pockets.
Judging from patent trolls (technically their lawyers) suing small startups, I don't see how thats the case, unless each website was serving <100 people and making 0 revenue.