<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: State Legislator Doesn&#8217;t Understand That He Works for the Government&#8211;Attwood v. Clemons	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/03/state-legislator-doesnt-understand-that-he-works-for-the-government-attwood-v-clemons.htm/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/03/state-legislator-doesnt-understand-that-he-works-for-the-government-attwood-v-clemons.htm</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Mar 2021 15:52:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Facebook Defeats Lawsuit Over Alleged &#039;Shadowbanning&#039;-De Souza Millan v. Facebook - Technology &#38; Marketing Law Blog		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/03/state-legislator-doesnt-understand-that-he-works-for-the-government-attwood-v-clemons.htm#comment-2957</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Facebook Defeats Lawsuit Over Alleged &#039;Shadowbanning&#039;-De Souza Millan v. Facebook - Technology &#38; Marketing Law Blog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Mar 2021 15:52:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=22455#comment-2957</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] Section 230(b). Section 230(b) contains a series of policy statements from Congress contextualizing Section 230. The court says: &#8220;The plain language of the statute shows that these are merely expressions of Congressional policy. These policies are not substantive provisions that provide a basis for liability, nor do they create a private right of action.&#8221; It&#8217;s interesting to see litigants trying to create substantive rights out of Section 230(b)&#8217;s policy statements&#8211;I just blogged about another attempted misuse of 230(b). [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Section 230(b). Section 230(b) contains a series of policy statements from Congress contextualizing Section 230. The court says: &#8220;The plain language of the statute shows that these are merely expressions of Congressional policy. These policies are not substantive provisions that provide a basis for liability, nor do they create a private right of action.&#8221; It&#8217;s interesting to see litigants trying to create substantive rights out of Section 230(b)&#8217;s policy statements&#8211;I just blogged about another attempted misuse of 230(b). [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: David Gingras		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/03/state-legislator-doesnt-understand-that-he-works-for-the-government-attwood-v-clemons.htm#comment-2954</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Gingras]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2021 17:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=22455#comment-2954</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/03/state-legislator-doesnt-understand-that-he-works-for-the-government-attwood-v-clemons.htm#comment-2946&quot;&gt;Ben Franklin&lt;/a&gt;.

Given the tone, I have to assume your views align to the right. If so, I can understand (sort of) your feeling that &quot;&lt;i&gt;Twitter engages in viewpoint discrimination&lt;/i&gt;&quot;. That&#039;s a nice sound bite that serves as valuable rhetoric for some people. But it is accurate?

Obviously, if you are a Trump supporter, you can fairly point to the fact that Twitter kicked Trump off the platform as support for your view that Twitter is engaged in &quot;viewpoint discrimination&quot;. OK, fine.

I personally don&#039;t see it that way. I see Twitter as engaging in &lt;i&gt;asshole discrimination&lt;/i&gt; -- removing people like Trump because they are lying, disruptive, un-American assholes, not because he happens to be a Republican. Also, you can&#039;t overlook the fact that even if Trump isn&#039;t on Twitter anymore, LOTS of right-wingers are. Really, if vile scum like Ted Cruz is still allowed on Twitter, can you really say Twitter is &quot;censoring&quot; all conservative voices? I don&#039;t see that as a fair argument.

Given Twitter&#039;s status as a private company, I have no problem with them discriminating against assholes. Isn&#039;t that a GOOD thing? If you own a restaurant (a/k/a private property, even if members of the public are allowed) and one of the customers is shouting threats at others in a drunken rage, you WANT that customer removed, right? Isn&#039;t that exactly what Twitter is doing? And isn&#039;t that a good thing?

Moral of the story -- no one has the right to use Twitter (or any other social media site) to spread hateful, caustic, dangerous lies. If you choose to engage in such conduct, you should expect to be shown the door...and rightly so.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/03/state-legislator-doesnt-understand-that-he-works-for-the-government-attwood-v-clemons.htm#comment-2946">Ben Franklin</a>.</p>
<p>Given the tone, I have to assume your views align to the right. If so, I can understand (sort of) your feeling that &#8220;<i>Twitter engages in viewpoint discrimination</i>&#8220;. That&#8217;s a nice sound bite that serves as valuable rhetoric for some people. But it is accurate?</p>
<p>Obviously, if you are a Trump supporter, you can fairly point to the fact that Twitter kicked Trump off the platform as support for your view that Twitter is engaged in &#8220;viewpoint discrimination&#8221;. OK, fine.</p>
<p>I personally don&#8217;t see it that way. I see Twitter as engaging in <i>asshole discrimination</i> &#8212; removing people like Trump because they are lying, disruptive, un-American assholes, not because he happens to be a Republican. Also, you can&#8217;t overlook the fact that even if Trump isn&#8217;t on Twitter anymore, LOTS of right-wingers are. Really, if vile scum like Ted Cruz is still allowed on Twitter, can you really say Twitter is &#8220;censoring&#8221; all conservative voices? I don&#8217;t see that as a fair argument.</p>
<p>Given Twitter&#8217;s status as a private company, I have no problem with them discriminating against assholes. Isn&#8217;t that a GOOD thing? If you own a restaurant (a/k/a private property, even if members of the public are allowed) and one of the customers is shouting threats at others in a drunken rage, you WANT that customer removed, right? Isn&#8217;t that exactly what Twitter is doing? And isn&#8217;t that a good thing?</p>
<p>Moral of the story &#8212; no one has the right to use Twitter (or any other social media site) to spread hateful, caustic, dangerous lies. If you choose to engage in such conduct, you should expect to be shown the door&#8230;and rightly so.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Ben Franklin		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/03/state-legislator-doesnt-understand-that-he-works-for-the-government-attwood-v-clemons.htm#comment-2946</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ben Franklin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2021 15:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=22455#comment-2946</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[No doubt if Clemons had reported the abusive commenter to Twitter, and Twitter suspended the account, you&#039;d be OK with that because something like Twitter is a private actor. But there&#039;s no doubt that Twitter engages in viewpoint discrimination, and you seem utterly unconcerned about that being weaponized.  What if it hadn&#039;t been a gun-control issue, but a proposed state law requiring COVID vaccines. If Atwood had made anti-vax comments that Clemons reported them to Twitter, Twitter would suspend Atwood&#039;s account.  At Clemons&#039;s direction.  But I think you&#039;d have no problem with it, even though the motivation and the result are the same.  You can&#039;t get around it by arguing that it&#039;s Twitter taking the action because it&#039;s Twitter taking the action whether Clemons hits the &quot;block&quot; button or the &quot;report&quot; button.  

At some point, you&#039;re going to have to come to terms with the fact that social media is the new public square.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No doubt if Clemons had reported the abusive commenter to Twitter, and Twitter suspended the account, you&#8217;d be OK with that because something like Twitter is a private actor. But there&#8217;s no doubt that Twitter engages in viewpoint discrimination, and you seem utterly unconcerned about that being weaponized.  What if it hadn&#8217;t been a gun-control issue, but a proposed state law requiring COVID vaccines. If Atwood had made anti-vax comments that Clemons reported them to Twitter, Twitter would suspend Atwood&#8217;s account.  At Clemons&#8217;s direction.  But I think you&#8217;d have no problem with it, even though the motivation and the result are the same.  You can&#8217;t get around it by arguing that it&#8217;s Twitter taking the action because it&#8217;s Twitter taking the action whether Clemons hits the &#8220;block&#8221; button or the &#8220;report&#8221; button.  </p>
<p>At some point, you&#8217;re going to have to come to terms with the fact that social media is the new public square.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
