Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ...
9
10
11
12
13
... LastLast
  1. #201
    Warchief
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dual US/Canada
    Posts
    2,142
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuor View Post
    You not, others are.


    I have no restrictions on what i say, and i already a lot of bad stuff that isn't ok... Anyway it isn't my style to say bad things about other people, but i do, if required.
    So you can legally go out in public and start shouting that you have proof that your neighbor has murdered 20 people, sodomized the corpses, and buried them in a field, and you are looking for a group of willing souls to help you storm their house and execute them?

    Because I kinda think if you would get in trouble for doing that. Even though all you are doing at that point is saying things. If you can't do that without getting in trouble, then you have a restriction on what you can say. It's a fair restriction, I daresay even a /good/ restriction, and it's one that almost every country out there shares. But a restriction it is nonetheless.

    (Also, we are bad but these other guys are worse is whataboutism, not white knighting)

  2. #202
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuor View Post
    Face the truth, here in Portugal no one goes to jail because of a stupid tweet.
    Already linked you that people do, in fact, go to jail for things like that in your country. The OP is about whether or not twitter is a common carrier and has to carry other people's speech. You couldn't even be bothered to read the OP before you commented:

    Quote Originally Posted by Tuor View Post
    I don't like commies or fascists... Who the hell is Clarence Thomas anyway? Never heard of him before.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuor View Post
    A US Judge say that there should be limitation to free speech, and i said i am against, because in my constitution there is nothing that limits to me in doing so, where is the limitation?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuor View Post
    One thing i am sure, it isn't Portugal that is discussing limitations of free speech, i would love to know the motivations of that judge, and what sort of limitations he defends.
    Face the truth, you don't know what you're talking about in this thread because you didn't read the OP, and think sending people to jail for defamation isn't a restriction on freedom of speech.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  3. #203
    Pit Lord Tuor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Valinor
    Posts
    2,343
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    Already linked you that people do, in fact, go to jail for things like that in your country.
    Because they deserved it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    The OP is about whether or not twitter is a common carrier and has to carry other people's speech. You couldn't even be bothered to read the OP before you commented:

    Face the truth, you don't know what you're talking about in this thread because you didn't read the OP, and think sending people to jail for defamation isn't a restriction on freedom of speech.
    My mistake, the title might be missleading... But i still find strange a court of a foreign country that has the power of limiting free speech.


  4. #204
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuor View Post
    You not, others are.
    We're saying defamation laws are a restriction on freedom of speech. Correctly. You're denying reality and claiming it's not. You're not going to face those type of penalties for speech that isn't a threat, planning a crime and carrying it out, or that leads to imminent death or physical injury. Those are our restrictions on freedom of speech that can land you in jail. You add an additional one, defamation.

    This entire thread has been about balancing freedom of association against freedom of speech, and you're literally arguing against the guy that is trying to favor speech over association in this specific case while going after him for limiting speech. You don't know what you're talking about.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Tuor View Post

    My mistake, the title might be missleading... But i still find strange a court of a foreign country that has the power of limiting free speech.
    Your own country has the same thing. Your constitutional court.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynarii View Post
    (Also, we are bad but these other guys are worse is whataboutism, not white knighting)
    The whole thing is about drawing parallel. This person is decrying the same system he has in his own country while not even addressing the issue at hand in the OP because he didn't read it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  5. #205
    Warchief
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dual US/Canada
    Posts
    2,142
    On the OP, the thread title is kinda awful to be honest for the reasons that I've mentioned before. The problem is NOT that Clarence Thomas thinks free speech should be regulated, because it already IS. The problem is that he was floating the idea of specifically regulating a piece of it for partisan political reasons, rather than a good faith argument over how such a restriction is required for protecting all citizens and allowing society to function properly.

    Lets be honest though, whatever you think about his specific GOALS in bringing up such regulation, the broader topic of where things like social media fits into society is one that desperately needs more clarity. The idea that Trump couldn't block people because it's official government communication but Twitter could block Trump because private company is a direct contradiction. I'm personally of the opinion that the government has been in the wrong on that topic, Twitter has not (to my knowledge) asked to be the official method of communication for any government function, and the government shouldn't be using it as such. But having a single thing being official or unofficial depending on the whims of which is most useful that day is BS and only causes confusion and problems.

  6. #206
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynarii View Post
    The idea that Trump couldn't block people because it's official government communication but Twitter could block Trump because private company is a direct contradiction.
    Twitter can't pass laws that will send you to jail. The government can, and setting the precedent that the gov't can silence dissenting speech is a justified fear. All twitter can do is ban you from their platform.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  7. #207
    I am Murloc! Noxx79's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Kansas. Yes, THAT Kansas.
    Posts
    5,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynarii View Post
    On the OP, the thread title is kinda awful to be honest for the reasons that I've mentioned before. The problem is NOT that Clarence Thomas thinks free speech should be regulated, because it already IS. The problem is that he was floating the idea of specifically regulating a piece of it for partisan political reasons, rather than a good faith argument over how such a restriction is required for protecting all citizens and allowing society to function properly.

    Lets be honest though, whatever you think about his specific GOALS in bringing up such regulation, the broader topic of where things like social media fits into society is one that desperately needs more clarity. The idea that Trump couldn't block people because it's official government communication but Twitter could block Trump because private company is a direct contradiction. I'm personally of the opinion that the government has been in the wrong on that topic, Twitter has not (to my knowledge) asked to be the official method of communication for any government function, and the government shouldn't be using it as such. But having a single thing being official or unofficial depending on the whims of which is most useful that day is BS and only causes confusion and problems.
    It absolutely is not a contradiction.
    There is a difference between a Twitter account and Twitter as a platform. Just like there’s a difference between book and a library.

    Trump administration said he was using his account for official business. That’s on them. All he had to do was limit his official business to his White House/POTUS account and he could block all he wanted on his personal account. He wouldn’t because he’s an evil narcissist who can’t admit a thing he did was improper.

  8. #208
    Warchief
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dual US/Canada
    Posts
    2,142
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    Twitter can't pass laws that will send you to jail. The government can, and setting the precedent that the gov't can silence dissenting speech is a justified fear. All twitter can do is ban you from their platform.
    What triggered this whole thing was a previous ruling that Trump couldn't block people because the account was official government communication. If twitter accounts are official government functions, that throws the ball into a completely different court than if they're just a side thing on a private platform that the government uses. This isn't a discussion about whether or not Twitter can pass laws, it's a discussion about what regulatory structure should be applied to it. Private corporation or public forum. They have different rules, and right now the confusion is leading to rules being applied or not somewhat haphazardly.

    Again, I'm personally of the belief that the private corporation rules are the correct ones, and if the government has recently been /using/ it as a public forum then that is because the government is wrong, not because the rule set is.

  9. #209
    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    Unfortunately tech companies have the USCDA to deal with and that is why can be changed on them. Of course, it'll be on the USSC to determine to what length sites like Twitter and Facebook can be considered platforms and publishers, and that is the more contentious issue surrounding section 230 of the CDA.
    Again, you don't know what the section 230 actually does. All it does, is protect Twitter and other platforms like Facebook from being sued because of what their users say on their platforms. Removing section 230 would just make it so that MORE moderation would happen like forcing a check on the post before it is cleared to be posted.

  10. #210
    Elemental Lord GreenJesus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    8,888
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    Again, you don't know what the section 230 actually does. All it does, is protect Twitter and other platforms like Facebook from being sued because of what their users say on their platforms. Removing section 230 would just make it so that MORE moderation would happen like forcing a check on the post before it is cleared to be posted.
    Removing 230 would basically remove all forums like mmochamp or reddit from the internet. We would need to provide government issued IDs to register on any site that we post information on and all posts would have to be filtered vefore being allowed to be posted or something. Otherwise sites like mmochamp would be liable or fined millions of dollars if they happened to have something on their site that they didnt immediately remove or prevent from being posted.

  11. #211
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenJesus View Post
    Removing 230 would basically remove all forums like mmochamp or reddit from the internet. We would need to provide government issued IDs to register on any site that we post information on and all posts would have to be filtered vefore being allowed to be posted or something. Otherwise sites like mmochamp would be liable or fined millions of dollars if they happened to have something on their site that they didnt immediately remove or prevent from being posted.
    No, it would just severely limit posting. Just imagine it taking days for a moderator to respond to a post here as it is, then it would require days more for a post to be approved.

  12. #212
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    No, it would just severely limit posting. Just imagine it taking days for a moderator to respond to a post here as it is, then it would require days more for a post to be approved.
    This is assuming some troll user won't find an issue with the post and convince an ignorant judge to agree. It's not worth the hassle.

  13. #213
    Quote Originally Posted by cors8 View Post
    This is assuming some troll user won't find an issue with the post and convince an ignorant judge to agree. It's not worth the hassle.
    Which, again, I highly doubt it is going to happen. Because that would mean the end of the comments sections of hate filled right wing sites like Breitbart and other conspiracy sites.

  14. #214
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynarii View Post
    What triggered this whole thing was a previous ruling that Trump couldn't block people because the account was official government communication. If twitter accounts are official government functions, that throws the ball into a completely different court than if they're just a side thing on a private platform that the government uses. This isn't a discussion about whether or not Twitter can pass laws, it's a discussion about what regulatory structure should be applied to it. Private corporation or public forum. They have different rules, and right now the confusion is leading to rules being applied or not somewhat haphazardly.

    Again, I'm personally of the belief that the private corporation rules are the correct ones, and if the government has recently been /using/ it as a public forum then that is because the government is wrong, not because the rule set is.
    I know what triggered it. My point was that you don't want to give an organization that can pass laws any tools to silence political speech, no matter where that speech takes place. There's a difference between twitter exercising its freedom of association and the government silencing speech. Thomas is still on the side of more free speech, but he's unjustly saying that specific groups of people's speech should override other groups' freedom of association. He shouldn't be bringing up trump blocking people at all in relation to regulating social media platforms at all because there are no similar protections in the constitution for trump, as the executive, for exercising his freedom of association (quite the opposite) as there are for twitter exercising their freedom of association (in fact, it says the gov't shouldn't interfere).

    I didn't feel like I had to spell all that out, as I thought it was fairly clear. It's a problem I have with not fully explaining my thoughts.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  15. #215
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    No, it would just severely limit posting. Just imagine it taking days for a moderator to respond to a post here as it is, then it would require days more for a post to be approved.
    The reason it would remove a lot of sites instead of limiting them is that a lot of sites would decide that personally approving every single post isn't worth the time and money it takes to do so and just stop altogether.

  16. #216
    Titan
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    America's Hat
    Posts
    13,204
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    Again, you don't know what the section 230 actually does. All it does, is protect Twitter and other platforms like Facebook from being sued because of what their users say on their platforms. Removing section 230 would just make it so that MORE moderation would happen like forcing a check on the post before it is cleared to be posted.
    No one at any point has said anything about removing it. That's not what repealing is, and you know it. The wording in the legislation is antiquated, not to mention that legislation and the rules that tech companies have to abide by, impact people who are not even American citizens.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenJesus View Post
    Removing 230 would basically remove all forums like mmochamp or reddit from the internet. We would need to provide government issued IDs to register on any site that we post information on and all posts would have to be filtered vefore being allowed to be posted or something. Otherwise sites like mmochamp would be liable or fined millions of dollars if they happened to have something on their site that they didnt immediately remove or prevent from being posted.
    Honestly, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Have you SEEN some of the garbage that has been posted on Twitter and Facebook? Not only QAnon conspiracy theory BS, I'm talking like communities of pedophiles on Twitter and people openly expressing a desire to have sex with animals. This shit is pretty much out in the open and Twitter in particular does nothing about it despite being clear violations of both US laws as well as international laws and their own website policies. At least on Facebook you can quarantine people with those kinds of views and ban their groups while keeping them away from the majority of users, but Twitter it's not very hard to dig up at all.

  17. #217
    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    No one at any point has said anything about removing it. That's not what repealing is, and you know it. The wording in the legislation is antiquated, not to mention that legislation and the rules that tech companies have to abide by, impact people who are not even American citizens.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Honestly, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Have you SEEN some of the garbage that has been posted on Twitter and Facebook? Not only QAnon conspiracy theory BS, I'm talking like communities of pedophiles on Twitter and people openly expressing a desire to have sex with animals. This shit is pretty much out in the open and Twitter in particular does nothing about it despite being clear violations of both US laws as well as international laws and their own website policies. At least on Facebook you can quarantine people with those kinds of views and ban their groups while keeping them away from the majority of users, but Twitter it's not very hard to dig up at all.
    Trump himself has called for removing it.

    And yes, that is what repealing is... by the fucking definition of the word.

    The wording isn't antiquated, the legislation is less than 30 years old, when we have laws that are considerably older. And yes, this would be a terrible thing. We know this, because we know what happened BEFORE it was there. Companies were being successfully sued for what people posted on chat forums. Imagine MMO-C being liable for all the racist and illegal shit people have said on here. Imagine them being liable for all the libelous claims made by people. That is what you are calling for. Without Section 230, the internet as we know it is dead. All that content that exists... would have to be checked BEFORE being allowed to be posted. And let's not forget, we're talking about billions and billions of posts a day, and millions of hours of video... every single day.

    Oh, and it's a direct attack on freedom of speech.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynarii View Post
    What triggered this whole thing was a previous ruling that Trump couldn't block people because the account was official government communication. If twitter accounts are official government functions, that throws the ball into a completely different court than if they're just a side thing on a private platform that the government uses. This isn't a discussion about whether or not Twitter can pass laws, it's a discussion about what regulatory structure should be applied to it. Private corporation or public forum. They have different rules, and right now the confusion is leading to rules being applied or not somewhat haphazardly.

    Again, I'm personally of the belief that the private corporation rules are the correct ones, and if the government has recently been /using/ it as a public forum then that is because the government is wrong, not because the rule set is.
    No, the issue was that Trump's own people declared his Twitter posts to be official communications. That meant blocking people from them was an act of government. Twitter really had no part to play in it.

    The confusion rests solely on the part of the people who want to end Section 230.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynarii View Post
    On the OP, the thread title is kinda awful to be honest for the reasons that I've mentioned before. The problem is NOT that Clarence Thomas thinks free speech should be regulated, because it already IS. The problem is that he was floating the idea of specifically regulating a piece of it for partisan political reasons, rather than a good faith argument over how such a restriction is required for protecting all citizens and allowing society to function properly.

    Lets be honest though, whatever you think about his specific GOALS in bringing up such regulation, the broader topic of where things like social media fits into society is one that desperately needs more clarity. The idea that Trump couldn't block people because it's official government communication but Twitter could block Trump because private company is a direct contradiction. I'm personally of the opinion that the government has been in the wrong on that topic, Twitter has not (to my knowledge) asked to be the official method of communication for any government function, and the government shouldn't be using it as such. But having a single thing being official or unofficial depending on the whims of which is most useful that day is BS and only causes confusion and problems.
    No, no it's not. The lawsuit with Trump wasn't between him and twitter, it was with Trump and users.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Multiculturalism hurts and kills. This happened before Trump and it would be happening without him. Racism arises from a multicultural society. If we were monocultural, people would not see issues through the lens of race.
    This is a poster saying that people are at fault for being the victims of terrorism, because they are not white.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilfire View Post
    I hate personal freedom because people abuse it like a shiny new toy.

  18. #218
    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    No one at any point has said anything about removing it. That's not what repealing is, and you know it. The wording in the legislation is antiquated, not to mention that legislation and the rules that tech companies have to abide by, impact people who are not even American citizens.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Honestly, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Have you SEEN some of the garbage that has been posted on Twitter and Facebook? Not only QAnon conspiracy theory BS, I'm talking like communities of pedophiles on Twitter and people openly expressing a desire to have sex with animals. This shit is pretty much out in the open and Twitter in particular does nothing about it despite being clear violations of both US laws as well as international laws and their own website policies. At least on Facebook you can quarantine people with those kinds of views and ban their groups while keeping them away from the majority of users, but Twitter it's not very hard to dig up at all.
    As Machismo said, Trump and all of his Republican followers and gullible supporters keep calling for it's removal. Even after I educate them on why removing it will make moderation worse, not better.

  19. #219
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenJesus View Post
    Removing 230 would basically remove all forums like mmochamp or reddit from the internet. We would need to provide government issued IDs to register on any site that we post information on and all posts would have to be filtered vefore being allowed to be posted or something. Otherwise sites like mmochamp would be liable or fined millions of dollars if they happened to have something on their site that they didnt immediately remove or prevent from being posted.
    not to mention every single video on the internet regardless of what it is. All those influencers, twich streamers, youtube, even tv/movie streaming....etc etc....anything they said or posted would in effect become the web sites owners liability.

    re-transmission of foxnews attacking the election could in theory create liable for any company that streamed foxnews.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    No one at any point has said anything about removing it. That's not what repealing is, and you know it. The wording in the legislation is antiquated, not to mention that legislation and the rules that tech companies have to abide by, impact people who are not even American citizens.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Honestly, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Have you SEEN some of the garbage that has been posted on Twitter and Facebook? Not only QAnon conspiracy theory BS, I'm talking like communities of pedophiles on Twitter and people openly expressing a desire to have sex with animals. This shit is pretty much out in the open and Twitter in particular does nothing about it despite being clear violations of both US laws as well as international laws and their own website policies. At least on Facebook you can quarantine people with those kinds of views and ban their groups while keeping them away from the majority of users, but Twitter it's not very hard to dig up at all.
    Well that is a load of horse shit given the amount of video's that are removed daily on all those platforms.

    Also there is a fine line between talking about something and actually threatening to do it or bragging that you did it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkTZeratul View Post
    The reason it would remove a lot of sites instead of limiting them is that a lot of sites would decide that personally approving every single post isn't worth the time and money it takes to do so and just stop altogether.
    and republicans cry about all the jobs that would be lost in oil and coal because of the things democrats want to do.


    could you imagine the blood bath without these protection in 230....

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    No, it would just severely limit posting. Just imagine it taking days for a moderator to respond to a post here as it is, then it would require days more for a post to be approved.
    no way. You would be required to provide multiple items of validations on whom you were and sign liability contracts in order to post comments or content.

    Not to mention you would have to agree to pay the cost of any litigation in defending your post/content in a court of law.

    Of course then we could have a booming employment market in lawyers and the associated industries.

    then again state/federal courts would be so jammed with cases you'd never have time for anything else.
    Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!

  20. #220
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    That seems a weak argument but I don't see much point in contesting it if anything it just highlights how moronic the concept of protected classes are. Have one set of laws for all people.
    Protected classes are based on what are thought to be "immutable" and "inherent" characteristics of a person - IE, they're part of who a person is, and can't easily be changed.

    Religion falling under that stems from a much more religious time in our country, in which religion was considered an inherent part of who you were. Now it's seen as more of a choice. But even in today's times, religion changes much less, and is more fundamental to more people's lives, than political ideology.

    The other protected classes (race, sex, age, disability, etc) are much more rock solid in that immutable/inherent test. And that's why sexual orientation is being fought over for being a protected class, because science has shown it time and time again to not be a choice, while dumbass conservatives wish to continue to argue it's a choice, and a perverse one at that.

Posting Permissions

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