Page 27 of 33 FirstFirst ...
17
25
26
27
28
29
... LastLast
  1. #521
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Then why on Earth are you whinging about a lack of evidence.



    Oh, so you admit you were lying when you said I was asking the government to "control speech", huh? Lol.



    Okay, and?



    Nah, it's not, or else website moderation or filtering spam wouldn't be legally permissible. You're not asking for speech, you're asking to be entitled to an audience.



    Thus admitting that cutting down on misinformation is not incompatible with free speech, as the Hustler v. Falwell ruling was fairly explicit about.



    Citizens United existing does not make common law not a thing, so not sure why you're saying this.

    You asked me what the law is, that does not mean it ought not to be changed.
    Nope, that's exactly what you want, the government to control speech. If your ownly argument is tat you don'[t want to restrict speech, only the volume, that's a terrible argument.

    Umm, you seem to be mixing private and government.

    Section 230 protects those sites. They can be as big of a microphone as they want, and they are free from liability from the government. The First Amendment also protects that right.

    Once again, if your argument is "common law," then you have to recognize that companies like Facebook have rights. You can claim they "ought" not to, but that is an argument against your own "common law" stance.

  2. #522
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    The government already restricts plenty of forms of speech.

    Again, see child pornography for an example that nobody but pedophiles thinks should be uncensored and free to express.

    No, the goal is to penalize/remove misinformation projects.

    If you can't tell the difference, that's a you problem.
    Very strongly reminded of the times we had to repeatedly remind Trump voters that being banned from MMO-C is not in fact a First Amendment violation, truth be told.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  3. #523
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    The government already restricts plenty of forms of speech.

    Again, see child pornography for an example that nobody but pedophiles thinks should be uncensored and free to express.



    No, the goal is to penalize/remove misinformation projects.

    If you can't tell the difference, that's a you problem.
    I never said they don't restrict speech, you are beating a dead straw man.

    Except, this would mean punishing the literal and objective truth. So, we both agree libel laws will not cut it.

    We also agree that corporations have the First Amendment rights.

    So, the only way to do this, would be new legislation, which would not only be nearly impossible to pass, would have to dramatically impact the First Amendment rights of those social media companies, as well as those pushing that misinformation. Any law would be immediately challenged, and rightfully so.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Very strongly reminded of the times we had to repeatedly remind Trump voters that being banned from MMO-C is not in fact a First Amendment violation, truth be told.
    This isn't MMO-C, this is the United States Government doing it.

    That's why it becomes a First Amendment issue.

  4. #524
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Nope, that's exactly what you want, the government to control speech. If your ownly argument is tat you don'[t want to restrict speech, only the volume, that's a terrible argument.
    "Because you say so" is such a compelling rebuttal, rofl.

    Umm, you seem to be mixing private and government.
    Oh, okay, so you're totally fine with people being banned for saying true things as long as it's just a private entity doing so.

    Section 230 protects those sites. They can be as big of a microphone as they want, and they are free from liability from the government.
    Cool: Section 230 does not entitle people to use said microphone, nor is regulating social media holding them liable for offenses on a user's part.

    Once again, if your argument is "common law," then you have to recognize that companies like Facebook have rights. You can claim they "ought" not to, but that is an argument against your own "common law" stance.
    Arguing that the common law on the subject should be changed is arguing that common law doesn't exist, apparently.
    Last edited by Elegiac; 2021-09-24 at 02:33 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  5. #525
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    "Because you say so" is such a compelling rebuttal, rofl.



    Oh, okay, so you're totally fine with people being banned for saying true things as long as it's just a private entity doing sp.



    Cool: Section 230 does not entitle people to use said microphone, nor is regulating social media holding them liable for offenses on a user's part.



    Arguing that the common law on the subject should be changed is arguing that common law doesn't exist, apparently.
    A private entity can do what the hell it wants. If they want to ban me for reciting pi, bully for them. They are free to do it, as it is their property, and they have First Amendment rights.

    Section 230 entitles internet companies to be that microphone, and makes no mention of how large that microphone is allowed to be. Regulating social media is bringing their First Amendment rights into play.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

    I never said common law didn't exist. But, if you ant to go by precedent, you have to accept that your own argument is justification for corporations having First Amendment rights. After all, it is precedent.

  6. #526
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    A private entity can do what the hell it wants. If they want to ban me for reciting pi, bully for them. They are free to do it
    Good on you admitting this isn't remotely a function of you caring about anyone's free speech rights but just an extension of the eternal "government bad" crusade. *slow clap*

    Section 230 entitles internet companies to be that microphone, and makes no mention of how large that microphone is allowed to be.
    Please point me to the part of Section 230 that entitles people to use that microphone.

    But, if you ant to go by precedent
    "If you like this precedent then you must also like this other one" is some lazy ass arguing on your part.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  7. #527
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Good on you admitting this isn't remotely a function of you caring about anyone's free speech rights but just an extension of the eternal "government bad" crusade. *slow clap*
    Umm, no... you're simply wrong.

    I'm not even sure how you got that from my comment.

    It's literally a support of private property rights, and the free speech rights of private individuals and business owners.

  8. #528
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I'm not even sure how you got that from my comment.
    *gestures*

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac
    Oh, okay, so you're totally fine with people being banned for saying true things as long as it's just a private entity doing so.
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    A private entity can do what the hell it wants. If they want to ban me for reciting pi, bully for them. They are free to do it
    If something is only bad when the government does it, your issue is with government rather than the thing being done. Don't write cheques you aren't prepared to have cashed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  9. #529
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Good on you admitting this isn't remotely a function of you caring about anyone's free speech rights but just an extension of the eternal "government bad" crusade. *slow clap*



    Please point me to the part of Section 230 that entitles people to use that microphone.



    "If you like this precedent then you must also like this other one" is some lazy ass arguing on your part.
    That's where I said the First Amendment comes in. If both the microphone owner wants them to use it, and the person wants to use the microphone, then that is a voluntary agreement. Both of them have First Amendment rights, including both speech, as well as association.

    You argued "common law" as your basis, so deal with the "common law" as the basis when it works against you. Of course, if you want to come up with another argument besides that, let me know.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    *gestures*




    If something is only bad when the government does it, your issue is with government rather than the thing being done. Don't write cheques you aren't prepared to have cashed.
    My issue is with protecting constitutional rights.

    The difference with a company doing it, is I can simply stop using it. Hell, I stopped using Facebook. So, this is not my argument, merely your improper interpretation.

  10. #530
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    That's where I said the First Amendment comes in.
    Please point me to the part of Section 230 that entitles people to use that microphone.

    You argued "common law" as your basis
    I argued Falwell v. Hustler as my basis for pointing out your assertion that truth is the distinguishing factor was wrong. Not sure how that implies support for Citizens United unless one believes that you can't like some laws but not others.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    My issue is with protecting constitutional rights.
    Indeed, because on your part "constitutional rights" are a convenient cudgel in aforementioned "government bad" crusade rather than because said rights actually furnish people's welfare.

    The difference with a company doing it, is I can simply stop using it.
    You have in excess of 191 other countries to choose from, too.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  11. #531
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Please point me to the part of Section 230 that entitles people to use that microphone.



    I argued Falwell v. Hustler as my basis for pointing out your assertion that truth is the distinguishing factor was wrong. Not sure how that implies support for Citizens United unless one believes that you can't like some laws but not others.
    Once again, that's where the First Amendment comes into play.

    I pointed to both for a reason.

    Hustler won, which was a win for free speech, and limited the ability to punish speech. Not only that, the truth is protection against attempts to stifle speech. That's why I cited the California law, because it requires that the statements be false. Since the statements are true, then it's a non-starter.

    Your argument was "common law," so the argument against you is "common law."

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Please point me to the part of Section 230 that entitles people to use that microphone.



    I argued Falwell v. Hustler as my basis for pointing out your assertion that truth is the distinguishing factor was wrong. Not sure how that implies support for Citizens United unless one believes that you can't like some laws but not others.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Indeed, because on your part "constitutional rights" are a convenient cudgel in aforementioned "government bad" crusade rather than because said rights actually furnish people's welfare.



    You have in excess of 191 other countries to choose from, too.
    Once again, this is what you keep pretending it is, when I have been very consistent that this is about protecting rights.

    Of course, if you don't like it, you can use your own argument, and pick one of those other countries, instead of trying to stifle free speech.

  12. #532
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Once again, that's where the First Amendment comes into play.
    So it's not actually a function of Section 230 but rather what you want the First Amendment to say. Good to know.

    Hustler won, which was a win for free speech, and limited the ability to punish speech.
    Without removing it; ergo, free speech and some level of restriction are not incompatible and your slippery slope fallacies are just that.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Of course, if you don't like it, you can use your own argument, and pick one of those other countries, instead of trying to stifle free speech.
    That's nice. Still means your "I can choose not to use Facebook but I'm stuck with the US government" was a false statement, though.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  13. #533
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,906
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I never said they don't restrict speech, you are beating a dead straw man.
    Then you can stop complaining about restrictions of harmful speech.

    If you're gonna go back to that, I'm gonna bring this up again, because you're being a hypocrite and trying to have things both ways.

    Except, this would mean punishing the literal and objective truth. So, we both agree libel laws will not cut it.
    Literally no one was talking about libel laws in this respect. It's not libel, in the first place.

    We also agree that corporations have the First Amendment rights.
    Trivially irrelevant, since if misinformation is not protected speech, it's not covered by the First Amendment in the first place.

    So, the only way to do this, would be new legislation, which would not only be nearly impossible to pass, would have to dramatically impact the First Amendment rights of those social media companies, as well as those pushing that misinformation. Any law would be immediately challenged, and rightfully so.
    If you're talking about practical realities, with a proto-Fascist GOP using these exact propaganda tools themselves, fine.

    If you're talking about what ought to happen, it shouldn't be "nearly impossible", it would only have comparable "impacts" as banning child porn. So where's the grounds for legitimate challenge?


  14. #534
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    So it's not actually a function of Section 230 but rather what you want the First Amendment to say. Good to know.



    Without removing it; ergo, free speech and some level of restriction are not incompatible and your slippery slope fallacies are just that.
    I even gave you the full reading of Section 230, it's why I also pointed to the 1st Amendment.

    Here you go:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...irst_amendment

    Some levels of restriction exist, nobody ever argued otherwise. Meanwhile, this is entirely different, because it's not about slanderous, libelous, or defamatory speech.

  15. #535
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Some levels of restriction exist, nobody ever argued otherwise.
    Aside from your insistence that restriction of speech is automatically a slippery slope into authoritarianism, you mean.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  16. #536
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Then you can stop complaining about restrictions of harmful speech.

    If you're gonna go back to that, I'm gonna bring this up again, because you're being a hypocrite and trying to have things both ways.



    Literally no one was talking about libel laws in this respect. It's not libel, in the first place.



    Trivially irrelevant, since if misinformation is not protected speech, it's not covered by the First Amendment in the first place.



    If you're talking about practical realities, with a proto-Fascist GOP using these exact propaganda tools themselves, fine.

    If you're talking about what ought to happen, it shouldn't be "nearly impossible", it would only have comparable "impacts" as banning child porn. So where's the grounds for legitimate challenge?
    Once again, not only do you have to show harm, you also have to show intent. And, in the case of slander and libel, you'd have to show them to be false statements.

    They are not false statements.

    People were talking about them, because they cited rulings based on them.

    You keep trying to compare it to child porn, which is fuckin stupid. These are factual statements, that are not against the law. That's like comparing a scathing Yelp review to rape.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Aside from your insistence that restriction of speech is automatically a slippery slope into authoritarianism, you mean.
    No, I pointed to THIS attempt as a slippery slope. I believe I was specifically referring to the government silencing verifiably truthful statements.

    It goes so far beyond current precedent, that it's not even in the same neighborhood.

  17. #537
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    These are factual statements, that are not against the law.
    You don't seem to have grasped that facts can be used to tell a false story.

    No, I pointed to THIS attempt as a slippery slope.
    Despite admitting that previous instances have not led to a slippery slope. Sure, Jan.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  18. #538
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    You don't seem to have grasped that facts can be used to tell a false story.



    Despite admitting that previous instances have not led to a slippery slope. Sure, Jan.
    Once again, that means it cannot be deemed as libelous.

    This is literally trying to restrict verifiably-true statements.

  19. #539
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Once again, that means it cannot be deemed as libelous.
    Good thing we aren't talking about libel in the case of social media.

    This is literally trying to restrict verifiably-true statements.
    It's restricting the use of true statements to spread false stories (i.e. misinformation). Critical difference, not sure why you're having a hard time with it besides irrational fear about the government.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  20. #540
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Good thing we aren't talking about libel in the case of social media.



    It's restricting the use of true statements to spread false stories (i.e. misinformation). Critical difference, not sure why you're having a hard time with it besides irrational fear about the government.
    So, what law are we talking about? the precedent is on the side of social media.

    When dealing with things that are largely subjective, the courts are going to stick with protecting speech.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •