By: Mr. Amazing

Mr. Amazing — Sat, 15 Dec 2018 18:33:00 +0000

Ummm. How do you figure YOUR free speech is limited if you were to go to ANOTHER user’s page and complain to twitter, facebook, youtube to get them banned for what they posted on their page? You are like a virtual antifa clown. Always showing up at other people’s events to shut them down over things you don’t agree with instead of just easily avoiding it. Also, you don’t know what a troll is.

By: Someone

Someone — Sat, 18 Aug 2018 22:05:00 +0000

I appreciate that the clerk of the First District is called Charles Johnson. Seems appropriate.

By: Ray Gordon

Ray Gordon — Sat, 18 Aug 2018 19:15:00 +0000

Section 230 means you can’t trust internet advertising because the platforms that carry it can’t be sued. It leaves people defenseless against libel from anonymous sources (like anonymous remailers or judgment-proof defendants across the world). The case Paul v. Davis from 1976 actually came clkose to establishing reputation as a constitutional right but said there was no constitutional harm to a local “flyering” of an individual by police. In a Google world, that harm would be found. The Supreme Court has still yet to affirm Section 230, which suggests they want it in place until some point in the future when they will knock it down.
Section 230 may be the law of the land, but it places the rights of internet companies over the reputations of individuals. It leads to “reputation blackmail” from foreign sources, and allows people to weaponize the internet in a manner that chills free speech by threat of retaliation against which people are defenseless. Some lawyers even target litigious individuals for third-party defamation by following them around online, waiting for them to have a conflict, linking the other side to the lies, knowing they will be repeated, then rushing in to defend “free speech” while collecting fees either from the wealthy pawn or crowdsourcing. Other countries do not recognize 230 and neither should the US. A small cadre of vocal attorneys has commandeered the issue. As for whther any law firm should be allowed 501(c)(3) status, that’s another issue. Free speech isn’t that free when tax breaks and student loan forgiveness are factored in.
If people want to place the rights of internet companies over my rights, that’s fine with me but they shouldn’t expect me to want to interact with them. They’ll think “no big loss” and then one day they’ll be targeted if they step out of line or tick off even one individual with an axe to grind. Even Ron Wyden has come to question 230’s validity. It will go down in history as one of the worst laws ever enacted.

By: Ray Gordon

Ray Gordon — Sat, 18 Aug 2018 19:15:00 +0000

We might as well just abolish all defamation law so that the targets of defamation can respond in kind without fear of being sued.

Comments on: Twitter Gets Powerful Win in “Must-Carry” Lawsuit–Taylor v. Twitter

By: Mr. Amazing

By: Someone

By: Ray Gordon

By: Ray Gordon