Last chance to speak your opinions?

[PPQer]

5 hours ago, Historian said:

Not sure he can do that.   Part of the reason, as i understand it, is Twitter, Facebook, etc., don't provide the content...just the way to deliver the content.   Regular television, newspapers and magazines, provide content are are seen different.

The fairness doctrine, as it was created in 1949, only applies to those with a "FCC license to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced."

The internet is, particularly, public forums and places like twitter, are seen differently.

But hey.  I'm not a lawyer.  Just someone who wrote about this in a media law class and has been following the topic for years.

Then we'll just have to fall back on the big government catch all:  The Interstate Commerce Clause.  Twitter is obviously seeking to make a profit and they are moving their product across state lines.  In the name of regulating interstate commerce, we'll create a "Dept of Internet Fair Treatment" and put all digital media under it's authority.  I suspect 500k employees is enough to start with, and an annual salary of $250k should be a living wage.  Of course their director, like the BATFE, FDA, and DEA will be able to write policies as they see fit, and of course, their policies become de facto law.

[Dric902]

Almost like it was set up just to have the issue...during the campaign

 

A ruling that emerged from a powerful federal appeals court in Washington on Wednesday morning is strong evidence that the courts are unlikely to be receptive to President Donald Trump’s claims that he and his political supporters are being silenced by social media platforms like Twitter.

The appeals court judges said that despite the companies’ power, they cannot violate the First Amendment because it only regulates governments, not the private sector. 

“Freedom Watch’s First Amendment claim fails because it does not adequately allege that the Platforms can violate the First Amendment. In general, the First Amendment ‘prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech,'” the court said.

The district court judge who handled the suit, Trump appointee Trevor McFadden, held that law didn’t cover the companies’ virtual, digital platforms.

“Freedom Watch contends that, because the Platforms provide an important forum for speech, they are engaged in state action. But…‘a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor….’ Freedom Watch fails to point to additional facts indicating that these Platforms are engaged in state action and thus fails to state a viable First Amendment claim,” the judges added.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/appeals-court-ruling-suggests-little-legal-traction-for-trumps-anti-twitter-campaign/ar-BB14G2n7

 

.

[janice6]

34 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

Almost like it was set up just to have the issue...during the campaign

 

A ruling that emerged from a powerful federal appeals court in Washington on Wednesday morning is strong evidence that the courts are unlikely to be receptive to President Donald Trump’s claims that he and his political supporters are being silenced by social media platforms like Twitter.

The appeals court judges said that despite the companies’ power, they cannot violate the First Amendment because it only regulates governments, not the private sector. 

“Freedom Watch’s First Amendment claim fails because it does not adequately allege that the Platforms can violate the First Amendment. In general, the First Amendment ‘prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech,'” the court said.

The district court judge who handled the suit, Trump appointee Trevor McFadden, held that law didn’t cover the companies’ virtual, digital platforms.

“Freedom Watch contends that, because the Platforms provide an important forum for speech, they are engaged in state action. But…‘a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor….’ Freedom Watch fails to point to additional facts indicating that these Platforms are engaged in state action and thus fails to state a viable First Amendment claim,” the judges added.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/appeals-court-ruling-suggests-little-legal-traction-for-trumps-anti-twitter-campaign/ar-BB14G2n7

 

.

Various courts see things differently.

[Swampfox762]

5 hours ago, Paul53 said:

He is usually diverting attention away from something. I'm guessing it's passing 100,000 covid deaths.

Your breakin my heart here...I hate to be "callous"  but, 100,000 is pissin in the wind compared to what all this crap has cost, and is COSTING Americans.  There are many, many things taking MORE American lives than this Crap.  

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm 

https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics/all-cancer-facts-figures/cancer-facts-figures-2019.html

I could go on and on...

"There's somethin happenin here, what it is ain't exactly clear"...... 

Sorry.  Do the math. 

[Dric902]

59 minutes ago, janice6 said:

Various courts see things differently.

That was a federal appeals court

with a Trump appointee

 

.

[Historian]

You do not want the government dealing with social media. Your biggest problem is we don't raise critical thinkers anymore. 

You will have some dumb ass like myself sitting in an office eating cheatoos by the bag...telling people what the truth is,

I'm not sure what the best path is.  But i do know this. I trust the American citizens about a billion times more than an algorith or some douche bag government employee...and i've  been working to the Feds, state or local for 25 years.

Speak your mind, often an loud!

Edited May 28, 2020 by Historian

[Historian]

4 minutes ago, Swampfox762 said:

Your breakin my heart here...I hate to be "callous"  but, 100,000 is pissin in the wind compared to what all this crap has cost, and is COSTING Americans.

 

It is not pissing in the wind. I lost family to this.

That being said...it could be far worse.   And i don't think you're being told the truth.

In my county (and i work emergency management) we think (THINK!!!) we have 15 percent of the population exposed and 7 deaths and a population of 130,000.

Open it up!!! See what happens. Our mortality rate is about .3 percent.

If a history major can figure this out...it's not rocket science.!

[Historian]

9 hours ago, Paul53 said:

I haven't noticed the media being slanted towards the Dems, but will watch for it now. Thanks for pointing it out.

I honestly....thought about your post....for a while.  You...got me. 

[Ricordo]

6 minutes ago, Historian said:

I'm not sure what the best path is. 

Section 230.

I'm a big fan of these sections things.

[Historian]

1 minute ago, Ricordo said:

Section 230.

I'm a big fan of these sections things.

Check out the brain on Ricardo....i'm down right impressed. Rock on with your bad self.

This is so much a good thing...and a bad thing.

[janice6]

17 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

That was a federal appeals court

with a Trump appointee

 

.

So what.

[Ricordo]

6 minutes ago, Historian said:

Check out the brain on Ricardo....i'm down right impressed. Rock on with your bad self.

This is so much a good thing...and a bad thing.

I don't mind them being sued left and right.

It's the American way.

The heck, even the chicoms might sue them...

[Ricordo]

For all we know, the chicoms might want their money back...

[Dric902]

24 minutes ago, janice6 said:

So what.

Well, it ain’t Night Court.

its a Federal Court

its at the appeal level

 

its very likely to stand, won’t go any further. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube cannot violate your 1A rights because it isn’t a government function and doesn’t control your 1A right to have the power to violate it.

but it makes for a great applause line at a rally

.

[Historian]

9 hours ago, Dric902 said:

Well, it ain’t Night Court.

its a Federal Court

its at the appeal level

That was good.  I steeling that line.

[Ricordo]

9 hours ago, Dric902 said:

its very likely to stand, won’t go any further. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube cannot

A big yes. Unless and until the stated policy of the US changes.

I welcome and encourage good, rational, intensive discussions which might or might not lead anywhere because of the very nature of opinions.

However, when a social media platform actively and intensively seeks to quash differing opinions just because they don't conform to the owner's or it's employees brain process, there I draw the line. If only because it goes against the principle stated in the second line here, which used to be the hallmark of academia.

Accordingly, the following quote might be recognized, perhaps not: "How's that  free speech kerfuffle working out?" Gene "Canadian-bacon" Tortelier

[Dric902]

2 hours ago, Ricordo said:

A big yes. Unless and until the stated policy of the US changes.

I welcome and encourage good, rational, intensive discussions which might or might not lead anywhere because of the very nature of opinions.

However, when a social media platform actively and intensively seeks to quash differing opinions just because they don't conform to the owner's or it's employees brain process, there I draw the line. If only because it goes against the principle stated in the second line here, which used to be the hallmark of academia.

Accordingly, the following quote might be recognized, perhaps not: "How's that  free speech kerfuffle working out?" Gene "Canadian-bacon" Tortelier

Eventually they will go the way of MySpace, iCQ, and every other first generation social media.

they will be replaced with the next platform and then the argument will start all over again.

 

as far as the private companies and stated goals......you should see who I work for, stated goals and policy is for the public consumption, lawyer written, vague and non substantive.

They will do as they please.

 

.

[PPQer]

Here is how they can go after Twitter:

https://cnsnews.com/article/washington/susan-jones/sen-hawley-why-should-twitter-receive-special-treatment-if-its-going

 

Hawley said, "Twitter’s decision to editorialize regarding the content of political speech raises questions about why Twitter should continue receiving special status and special immunity from publisher liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act."

Section 230 says companies that merely distribute user content should not be treated like a publisher, such as the New York Times or the Washington Post.

Meanwhile, Hawley noted that Twitter has failed to respond to the "outright lies and propaganda by the Chinese Communist Party," which, for example, used social media to blame American soldiers for starting the coronavirus pandemic.

Hawley wants Twitter to explain why companies that act like publishers -- by editorializing on President Trump’s tweets, in this case -- should not be treated like publishers.

Hawley told Fox News's Laura Ingraham Wednesday night that the "special deal" the government has given to Twitter, Facebook and Google has allowed them to become as big and powerful as they are:

It’s not because of free-market competition but the lack of free-market competition, because the government has given them a special deal that Fox News doesn't get and "The New York Times" doesn't get -- no traditional publisher gets.

They are free from liability, free from suit. They’ve got a special immunity. And here’s the thing. If they are going to act like regular publishers, and Twitter’s going to editorialize about the president of the United States, then they ought to be treated like a regular publisher, and that's what my bill would do.

Hawley said social media platforms have been politicized for some time, censoring conservative views, in some cases. But by deciding to "fact-check" the president -- "that’s really elevated what they’re doing.

“They are editorializing, they are censoring, they are making political judgments. And yet they’re claiming that, oh, no, no, no, we’re not like traditional media. We should be treated differently. We're neutral. We don't have any opinions, we just post other people’s opinions. It just isn't true, Laura. And it's time to start calling them out on it."

Hawley said if social media companies want to editorialize like other media outlets do, "go right on ahead – you can do that, it's a free country, they’re a free company, but they shouldn't get a special deal from government because of it."

Late Wednesday night, Twitter CEO Dorsey tweeted, "We’ll continue to point out incorrect or disputed information about elections globally...This does not make us an 'arbiter of truth.' Our intention is to connect the dots of conflicting statements and show the information in dispute so people can judge for themselves. More transparency from us is critical so folks can clearly see the why behind our actions."

[Ricordo]

Reminded of a story about the great bluegrass cello virtuoso Gene "Canadian-Bacon" Tortelier. His best friend and fellow cello virtuoso, Yo Yo Xi, once stated, "GT could hit all the notes."

That's the best that you can expect from a peer review. Sadly, they both died in the 50s and therefore, no recordings exist that can be uploaded to Youtube or Google.

[Historian]

PPQer had a great post.

I think Twitter may have...done itself in.

 

[holyjohnson]

bigger issue is that the guy in charge of tagging tweets is has called president Trump a Nazi and Racist and Sexist and whatever else they can paint him as.

and is probably the one responsible for alerting the Media to "eye brow raising" "Troublesome" tweets.

Twitter can run its Business how it sees fit, but if it falls outside the Decency act guidelines they shouldn't be Protected by it.

Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and Google Censor views they don't like and adjust the rules to limit or remove them.

[PPQer]

Now if the DOJ and right wing groups would start filing lawsuits, Twitter would be facing some serious legal bills.  It's time we start using the deep pocket of the feral.gov against our enemies.  That would scare Facebook pretty bad.

I wish the President would get someone to start a competitor to Twitter.

I wonder if You Tube can be sued over lost revenue for people they have demonitized?

Edited May 30, 2020 by PPQer

[Dric902]

As soon as you say “probably” you are speculating