Cursed Political Content

  • Thread starter TexRex
  • 5,770 comments
  • 249,918 views
TheCracker
Click to expand...

turtle-spin.gif
 
Joey D
It's rare something makes me physically cringe, but here we are.
Click to expand...
That's what happens when you throw away a 10+ year old account to change literally everything about it to unironically complain about others being woke.
 
@Outspacer , @TexRex
TexRex
That may have been my favorite part. It's like a mashup of libel and liability.
Click to expand...
So if we presume that this person meant libel... how is libel a "law against suppression of free speech?" It would be more accurate to say that libel is suppression of free speech (not accurate, but more accurate). Libel actually has the effect of curtailing speech, not enabling it.

How can so many misunderstanding be present in so few words? Especially for an education advocate.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
So if we presume that this person meant libel... how is libel a "law against suppression of free speech?" It would be more accurate to say that libel is suppression of free speech (not accurate, but more accurate). Libel actually has the effect of curtailing speech, not enabling it.

How can so many misunderstanding be present in so few words?
Click to expand...
I don't think they actually meant libel. I put that in there because the manner in which liability was invoked seemed similar to that of libel to me. Like there's some sweeping set of statutes under which an entity like Twitter (though the action was taken by YouTube in this instance, but then that confusion fits into the grievance narrative that "woke," "leftist" orgs are ganging up on conservatives to suppress speech) may be held liable for...anything. "Liable law."

But...I don't think what I suspect they meant is any less stupid than that. This screams of misunderstanding about what protections Section 230 provides:
Chrunch Houston
Oh I am not whining, they can either be a platform, or a publisher. They can not be both. Publishers are held responsible for what they allow to be published. Platforms are not.
Click to expand...
Section 230 shields YouTube and Twitter and any other online speaker from liability for the speech of others, and reasonable people tend to understand that this is as it should be.

Publishers don't "allow" things to be published. Publishers publish. It's right there in the name. Because they exercise discretion over the content they publish, they may be held liable in the event that the content they publish isn't subject to protections.

Platforms don't publish. Platforms are a conduit for content. And to avoid confusion, "content" here and above refers to various forms of speech. If platforms exercise discretion over the content they carry, it's typically done after the fact (or preemptively in the event that they revoke publishing privileges--and it is a privilege--of an individual or group of individuals). Section 230 actually empowers them to exercise this discretion. That's really why it exists (and why it's part of the Communications Decency Act, the impetus of which was to make the internet a space that anyone could use and hopefully not be bombarded with content they may find offensive). It doesn't compel them to remove content, however, because as a federal statute, such a requirement would be facially unconstitutional. Compelled speech isn't free speech.

Here's a fun exercise to better understand what Section 230 does. Suppose Twitter were to establish a traditional publishing arm under which it acquires rights to user content and releases printed works. It's a little unimaginative, but let's call it Twitter Books. Because Twitter has exercised discretion over the content it has chosen to print, it may be liable in the event that what it has printed isn't subject to protections. At the very same time, despite also operating as a traditional publisher, Twitter is not liable for the online speech of others, nor should it be.
Danoff
Especially for an education advocate.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm not putting much stock in that because they also purport to be a libertarian. Those aren't libertarian principles they're espousing, but then purported libertarians espousin authoritarian princilles are in vogue right now.

I'm trying not to think about how they treat dogs.
 
Wow @TexRex, Quoting me from 16 months ago, and even from a different thread, what an honor.

Nice to know I live rent free in your head.
 

Latest Posts

Back