Sign in to follow this  
Guest

When does Social media hate speech become a real Threat???

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I've been personally charged with disorderly conduct for yelling at someone.   He was an undercover liquor enforcement agent, and a jackass, but, I still got charged...  NH -  Live free or die?   Not in Portsmouth. 

Sounds like an enforcement issue and a bad cop, not an issue with the legislation.  Did the prosecutor drop the charges?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MR.CLEAN said:

Sounds like an enforcement issue and a bad cop, not an issue with the legislation.  Did the prosecutor drop the charges?

I was only up there for work - and the agent and prosecutor agreed that if I came back for the court date 3 months later, and plead to "failure to follow a lawful order" and paid that fine, they'd drop the other charge.   Fugger shoulda ID'd himself before he snatched my G&T off the table in front of me.  Glad I didn't grab his arm - he'd have probably charged me w/assault.  

To your first comment - isn't ANY enforcement of legislation an "enforcement issue"?   Going back to the OP - who decided that a 14 yr old kids' CL prank constituted a felony hate crimes charge?     My point is that this legislation seems to provide excess leeway to enforcement without really defining what constitutes a "hate crime", resulting in what on the surface, to my non-legal way of thinking, an improper prosecution.     Now - if the kid in question had actually done something that harmed the other kid?   I'd feel a lot differently about it.  Reporting so far hasn't indicated that that's the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

A hate crime in IL is when a person commits assault, battery, aggravated assault, intimidation, stalking, cyberstalking, misdemeanor theft, criminal trespass to residence, misdemeanor criminal damage to property, criminal trespass to vehicle, criminal trespass to real property, mob action, disorderly conduct, transmission of obscene messages, harassment by telephone, or harassment through electronic communications by reason of the victims actual or perceived race

The only one that remotely fits seems to be herassmeant through electronic communications but the law says "as defined blah blah blah" so I'm not even sure that one fits. I would think it should take more than one instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2019 at 5:54 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

The Supreme Court seems to agree.
 

Quote

 

The Supreme Court won’t revive a lawsuit against a firearms website over a suburban Milwaukee spa shooting.

The justices rejected an appeal Monday from the daughter of one of three people shot to death by a man who illegally bought a semi-automatic pistol and ammunition from someone he met through Armslist.com.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court dismissed the suit, ruling that federal law protects website operators from liability for posting content from a third party.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When does social media speech become a real threat to the English language?

In an otherwise good article about Duopoly efforts to repeal Section 230 of the CDA, one of my pet peeves appeared:
 

Quote

 

Further, a non-Section 230 world would mean internet platforms may choose not to moderate any third-party content at all. Currently, Section 230 ensures that internet platforms can perform the essential work of moderating harmful content without facing liability. Removing those protections would disincentivize platforms from removing content, allowing free reign to violent extremists, Nazis and other repugnant actors.

...

Michael Petricone is senior vice president of government affairs for the Consumer Technology Association (CTA).

 

That's a lobbying group. They're in the business of communicating. Or, you know, $peaking. And the senior VP doesn't know the expression "free rein" but still attempts to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pelosi Reportedly Wants To Strip Online Free Speech Protections From Trade Deal
 

Quote

 

The new trade pact between the United States, Canada, and Mexico is a mixed bag, but one of its undeniably excellent components is a provision that effectively exports American protections for online free speech to other countries.

But Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) is reportedly pushing to cut that language from the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) before Congress votes on the new trade deal. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier today that Pelosi is considering removing the liability protections for online platforms from the trade deal because including that language might make it more difficult for lawmakers to hack away at those same protections domestically.

"There are concerns in the House about enshrining the increasingly controversial…liability shield in our trade agreements, particularly at a time when Congress is considering whether changes need to be made in U.S. law," a spokesman for Pelosi told the Journal.

...

Right now, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are pressing to make changes to Section 230 in a misguided attempt at holding tech platforms like Google and Facebook legally liable for comments, tweets, and Facebook posts. That would be a change for the worse here in American, and it doesn't make sense for Pelosi to weaken the USMCA just so rank-and-file Democrats (and Republicans) can strip Section 230 protections here in America too.

 

And the war on Section 230 goes international.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Facebook is part of a toxic ecosystem of hate – it should be regulated or shut down

An investigation by the Guardian reveals that an online network has found a way to make money by pushing a steady stream of low-grade rightwing propaganda at low-information users around the world.

We might argue, then, that what they created was a miniature version of Facebook’s own business.

The investigation suggests that several deceptive operators engaged in a “covert plot to control some of Facebook’s largest far right pages”.

But it appears they did so not for ideological reasons, but because they understood it as a way to make cash by directing ordinary users to amateurish websites dripping with ads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh. It seems random is

Quote

prone to consume and, importantly, share “content that is highly emotive and contains polarising and extreme material”. Their willingness to smash the share button means that they are “great for business”.

The good news is that

Quote

Facebook can’t, won’t and never will voluntarily engage in the necessary amount of proactive moderation which would inhibit hate...

I just checked and this post is still up on my page:

EvaCorruptOaf.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

It does bring up an interesting question though......  TV, radio, and telephone communications are all regulated and have been from their inception.  No one seems to question that. 

Why is the internetz special?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

It does bring up an interesting question though......  TV, radio, and telephone communications are all regulated and have been from their inception.  No one seems to question that. 

Why is the internetz special?

Some of us have questioned things like the "Fairness Doctrine," FCC censorship standards, and how the surveillance state uses phone records.

None of those relate to USER content.

Who is responsible for your post above: you or The Ed?

Section 230 and I say you are responsible for your post. If you were working for The Ed like a reporter works for a TV station, The Ed could be responsible for publishing what you say. But you're a user of a platform, not an employee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

When does social media speech become a real threat?

When California Man Does An Art Project.

In this world, that dipshit had it coming. Who knows if that will go to prosecution or if the “artist” will plead to misdemeanor “disorderly conduct” or “weapons violations.” But posting a vid of yourself blank shooting passerby from a hotel window is asking for legal trouble and a psych evaluation.

Do you think he can be trusted with his tools?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Do you think he can be trusted with his tools?

No.

Do you think youtube is responsible for his art?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

No.

Do you think youtube is responsible for his art?

Once reported, I think it should be removed from public view and reviewed by an arbiter and probably taken down.

There could be numerous legal justifications used, including protecting the “artist” from civil suits from his intended victims who felt his aiming a gun at them constituted a threat to their lives which now cause them emotional harm after viewing the action.

Perhaps civilian viewers could be able to submit suspect vids to an independent arbiter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2019 at 6:06 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Joe Biden Has Officially Joined the Misguided Crusade Against Online Free Speech
 

Quote

 

...

On Monday night, the former vice president told a CNN town hall that he'd be willing to rewrite the rules for all online platforms in order to force social media companies to "be more socially conscious."

"I just think it's a little out of hand," Biden continued. "And I, for one, think we should be considering taking away the exception that they cannot be sued for knowingly engaged on (sic), in promoting something that's not true."

The exemption that Biden is talking about is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It is the First Amendment for the online world. Just 26 words long, Section 230 promises that online platforms will not be held liable for content provided by users or other publishers.

Biden knows all about Section 230, or at least he should. He voted for it in 1995.

...

 

Those were the daze.

Well, Joe thought about Section 230
 

Quote

 

...

"Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms," says Biden.

When the Times' Charlie Warzel points out that Section 230 is "pretty foundational" to the modern internet, Biden takes his personal disagreement with Zuckerberg and blows it up into a policy that would destroy free speech for all internet users.

"That's right. Exactly right. And it should be revoked. It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false, and we should be setting standards not unlike the Europeans are doing relative to privacy," Biden says. "You guys still have editors. I'm sitting with them. Not a joke. There is no editorial impact at all on Facebook. None. None whatsoever. It's irresponsible. It's totally irresponsible."

Biden goes on to say that both Zuckerberg and Facebook should be held civilly liable for false information posted on the platform, and even leaves open the possibility that Zuckerberg could somehow be held criminally liable. All of this, Biden says, is because Facebook ran "Russian ads" during the last presidential campaign.

Those ads were comically bad and had a negligible impact on the outcome of the 2016 election. What would significantly impact the future of American democracy and society would be the elimination of Section 230 protections for the entire internet.

...

 

So if I were to say that someone is a fat grifter and it turns out that he's enormously fat but not a grifter, should The Ed have to pay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2018 at 9:55 AM, Remodel said:

People suck.

“Hell is other people” 

-Sartre

:lol:
 

Hey Remodel!  You agree with a French Philosopher!  Hails of derisive laughter!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Amati said:

“Hell is other people” 

-Sartre

:lol:
 

Hey Remodel!  You agree with a French Philosopher!  Hails of derisive laughter!

I'd climb the wall for the Trojan women and the respectful prostitute, but there are the flies, which gives me nausea, and there is a hurricane over Cuba and I am afraid there is no exit.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Remodel said:

I'd climb the wall for the Trojan women and the respectful prostitute, but there are the flies, which gives me nausea, and there is a hurricane over Cuba and I am afraid there is no exit.

When in grad school, I lived around the corner from the Sartre No Exit Rooming House.  It was filled with graduate and post graduate students.  Fun place!  Lots of berets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Remodel said:

I'd climb the wall for the Trojan women and the respectful prostitute, but there are the flies, which gives me nausea, and there is a hurricane over Cuba and I am afraid there is no exit.

So, what brand of French tickler do the Trojan women prefer?

Inquiring minds want to know

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

So, what brand of French tickler do the Trojan women prefer?

Inquiring minds want to know

- DSK

I'm not sure, but a pearl ring worn inverted on the middle finger is a popular option...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh goody, the DOJ held a public workshop!
 

Quote

 

...On Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Justice held a "public workshop" on Section 230. Predictably, it wound being up a greatest hits of the half-truths and paranoid bellyaching commonly employed against this important law.

...

In reality, Section 230 applies to even the smallest companies and groups (and is more important for ensuring their existence than it is for big companies, whose army of lawyers and moderators have a better chance of weathering a post-230 onslaught of lawsuits from users). And it applies to many types of digital entities, including behind-the-scenes web architecture (such as blogging platforms and email newsletter software), consumer review websites, crowdfunding apps, podcast networks, sailing message-boards, dating platforms, digital marketing tools, email providers, and many more.

...

 

OK, so maybe I swapped out a word in the above quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like CPAC stands for Conservative Politicians Advocating Censorship

They did at least have a couple of dissenters.

Quote

Thursday's panel did include two voices from the other side of the debate. "I can't believe I'm doing this, because I'm here to convince you at a conservative conference that government shouldn't regulate speech," said Ashkhen Kazaryan of TechFreedom. She and Chris Butler of Americans for Tax Reform posed the question: What will conservatives say when a liberal president is in office and the government enjoys such powers?

Good question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2019 at 11:05 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:
On 7/26/2019 at 8:28 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

FAN vs Facebook shows the value of Section 230
 

I love it when bloggers in pajamas slam censors.

I hope Tulsi v Google meets the same fate. 

From the Tulsi thread:

9 hours ago, Fakenews said:


Thanks for sharing the good news, Gator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope Trump v Bezo$' $peech meets the same fate

Quote

Donald Trump's reelection campaign says The Washington Post defamed the president. It's truly the golden era of frivolous defamation suits filed by political figures and groups who wish to quash free speech that doesn't suit them. (Sigh. Scream.) The latest of these legally dubious—but nonetheless threatening—endeavors comes from the Trump 2020 presidential campaign. After suing The New York Times for alleged libel last month, Donald J. Trump For President Inc. has now filed a complaint against The Washington Post.

Needless to say, I'm as sorry as usual for posting more Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, when you run around the forums with red spew, for five years, is that hate speech on the media?

What the hell is this pattern, if not hate speech? No thread transfer required

Quote

let's play WHEEL OF RACE-BAITING with our host, Tom "dogballs" Ray

 

  1. Aussie Apartheid, then the NAACP; 
  2. MLK's gun permit denial, the NAACP;
  3. MLK's church, smearing Rev. Mosteller, the NAACP;
  1. Bloomberg and stop and frisk, the NAACP; 
  1. Gangstas dealing drugs, sheer scapegoating,  and the NAACP; 
  2. Stacy Abrams, the Black Panthers, and the NAACP;
  3. Louis Farrakhan, Darren X, the NAACP;
  4. Judge Taney is coming, thirty times. the NAACP;
  5. Dred Scott fifteen times, as a code for gun rights, and the NAACP
  6. Cooing Chicago (instead of noticing multiple epidemics of violence), the NAACP;
  7. Claiming black gun stats disprove white gun ownership problems;
  8. Did I mention the NAACP… for more than 125 mentions?

 

Quote

A Tom journey, from MLK on March 25th, to Dylan Roof June 17, 2015

         

  • Autumn, 2014  Tom will entertain guesses why MLK's gun permit was denied
  • March 25th, 2015 MLK's church is bashed. By now, Joe's tongue is sore from biting on it for three years. Joe reprimands Tom (for working MLK, and his church ffs, for gunz).
  • Same day: Tom doubles down on the generic race-baiting.
  • On 4/2/2015  Post 904 Tom jukes the fratricidal numbers (aka WHEEL OF RACEBAITING trick  #11)
  • 5/2/2015, Grand Slam of Race-baiting, including MLK's church
  • 5 2 Joe outlines thirty days of race-baiting
  • Add one gent to another, two of
  • Post 295 5-42015  Tom offers the same fratricidal data,
  • Post 298 Same day  Joe's red ink words
  • June 17."religious assassinations" in Charleston, and political ones too

 

Quote

The Dogballs Study of Racial Volatility, page one of three 

Censoring T-Bizzle

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Plenipotentiary Tom's topic in Political Anarchy

...You hope for a jury that knows to toss them Kool cigs to soothe their immature andvolatile nature, but it doesn't always work out.

2 hours ago

It's A Beautiful Day For A Church Shooting

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to badlatitude's topic in Political Anarchy

...Davis is considered armed and dangerous by law enforcement and is considered immature andvolatile by our own jocal. One thing he is not considered by anyone is convenient for gungrabby purposes, which is why I'm the only one to actually discuss this "mass" shooting. Still, it's a "mass" shoot...

January 4

At least 2 injured in shooting at New Jersey high school football game

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Mid's topic in Political Anarchy

...nor do I think this incident will get much more attention now that we know the shooters are adults that someone like jocal might call immature andvolatile . Very inconvenient. But it's a "school shooting," the very most convenient kind for grabbers, so although it won't get any more individual...

November 18, 2019

Is this a racist comment?

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Shootist Jeff's topic in Political Anarchy

...and morevolatile , among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites."

October 30, 2019 Is this a racist comment?

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Shootist Jeff's topic in Political Anarchy

...and morevolatile , among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites." But the fact that Dred Scott was a black man is irrelevant to most of us. Even if he were white, the fact that the Supreme Court in that era thought citizens could "keep and carry arms wherever they went" would still negate...

October 30, 2019 

the potential of civil war

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to aA's topic in Political Anarchy

...Gun nuts don't have a lot in common with White Power types who think black skin makes a person immature andvolatile , though unlike some of those elk around here, we do have the sense to refrain from destroying our own squirrel shooters. That's why this was inserted in the Declaration:...

October 7, 2019 

Oh Looky - NY Sheriffs Association responds to Cuomo's gun laws.

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to a topic in Political Anarchy

...some people considered black people to be immature andvolatile . We still have a handful like that around today. For such people, skin color could help to determine who has good character and who does not.

September 20, 2019 

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Plenipotentiary Tom's topic in Political Anarchy

...Treating those you consider "immature" and "volatile " because of their skin color I don't see the problem with extending those rights to black people, but then, I don't consider them immature andvolatile because of their skin color either.

July 14, 2019

Oh Looky - NY Sheriffs Association responds to Cuomo's gun laws.

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to a topic in Political Anarchy

...excluding people you view as immature andvolatile because of their skin color. It's true that our history contains lots of examples of racial and sex discrimination like those, but the fact that such things existed in Colonial times doesn't mean we continued to accept them in the 20th century...

September 4, 2019

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Plenipotentiary Tom's topic in Political Anarchy

...I don't agree with your idea that black people are immature andvolatile and would likely tell the judge what my elk have said in this thread: If you're too lazy to look it up, execrable basically means shitty.

August 12, 2019 

Hey, Gun Nuts, This Is On You!

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Jules's topic in Political Anarchy

Does that guy look kind of immature andvolatile to anyone else?

August 6, 2019

The debate over assault weapons

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Shootist Jeff's topic in Political Anarchy

...Anderson appears pretty immature andvolatile , so this one isn't really all that convenient, but hey, let's TnP of DOING SOMETHING anyway. Mass Shooting In Washington DC Gee, another late night at a bar. Haven't seen one of those in a while. The article doesn't say whether...

July 30, 2019

Is this a racist comment?

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Shootist Jeff's topic in Political Anarchy

...does it mean that racist application of laws is OK as long as the targets have a skin color that demonstrates they arevolatile and immature? Or did you see today's post yet?

July 27, 2019 

The debate over assault weapons

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Shootist Jeff's topic in Political Anarchy

...Two have been arrested and they appear a bit immature andvolatile , just going by their pictures. Very inconvenient. But five is more than four so TnP of DOING SOMETHING. Mass Shooting In California No suspect and no known motive, but four is, after all, four, so DO S...

July 11, 2019

The debate over assault weapons

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Shootist Jeff's topic in Political Anarchy

...who appears kind of immature andvolatile judging by the picture. Not a very convenient mass shooting but as always, the math dictates the SOLution: DO SOMETHING. I go to all the trouble of providing random with an incident in which a child got hold of a gun, and what do I get?

July 3, 2019

Is this a racist comment?

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Shootist Jeff's topic in Political Anarchy

I guess when I come to the enlightened realization that melanin in the skin makes people immature andvolatile . I sincerely hope that day never comes.

June 26, 2019

The debate over assault weapons

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Shootist Jeff's topic in Political Anarchy

...who appears kind of immature andvolatile judging by the picture. Not a very convenient mass shooting but as always, the math dictates the SOLution: DO SOMETHING. Mass Shooting In California...

June 24, 2019

Georgia Gubernatorial Election

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to 2slow's topic in Political Anarchy

...Same reason you think they're immature andvolatile ?

June 23, 2019 

Oh Looky - NY Sheriffs Association responds to Cuomo's gun laws.

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to a topic in Political Anarchy

...that black people are too immature andvolatile for gunpower. Not that this attitude has a thing to do with race. Or maybe it's explicitly and mostly about race. Readers will know. No time for more today, got a Kids Sailing Camp that's way more fun than the non-readers around here. I m...

June 11, 2019

Is this a racist comment?

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Shootist Jeff's topic in Political Anarchy

I didn't know that talking about what the Supreme Court said about the dangers of lettingvolatile people "keep and carry arms wherever they went" was race baiting. I thought that applied more to quoting you?

June 2, 2019

No Fly List Is Unconstitutional

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Olsonist's topic in Political Anarchy

...volatile . If FakeNewb were to admit he's Gator, maybe he'd get back around to calling such things regressive and troubling.

May 7, 2019

Georgia Gubernatorial Election

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to 2slow's topic in Political Anarchy

...The guy in the white pants looks pretty pleased but that one on the right looks a bitvolatile . But I'm no expert on such things. Let's ask one. Jocal? Do any of them appear immature andvolatile to you?

November 4, 2018

Supreme Court Strikes down Chicago Gun ban

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Shootist Jeff's topic in Political Anarchy

...because some people back then viewed them as immature andvolatile compared to whites.

November 11, 2018

The Socialist Rifle Association and The Rise of the Armed Left

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to badlatitude's topic in Political Anarchy

...but if one race is more immature andvolatile than another, doesn't it just make sense to disarm them?

November 8, 2018

2nd Amendment: In the home only?

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Plenipotentiary Tom's topic in Political Anarchy

...This was considered a huge problem at the time because some people thought that blacks are too immature andvolatile to be considered people with gun rights. That kind of thinking has mostly gone away.

October 21, 2018

 

 

(To be continued. The five-year anniversary of this phenomena will be celebrated Apr. 4th.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2020 at 10:17 AM, jocal505 said:

Tom, when you run around the forums with red spew, for five years, is that hate speech on the media?

Do you mean this, Joe Calhoun?

On 5/4/2015 at 2:35 PM, jocal505 said:

The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites.


I agree that it's "spew" and that you colored it red, but the question that would be relevant to this thread is: is The Ed responsible for it? I don't think so. I think you are. But don't worry. You're grabby, I'm not, so anything you say or do will be happily excused here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF?  I had a beautiful day in the Cascade Mts. yesterday.

You have over-used these words, without context. But you baited these very words three posts before they were spoken, while race-baiting fratricidal facts repetitously. The red ink copied your red ink to Mark K and you were race-baiting him, IMO.:(You demanded of him to know why MLK's gun permit was denied, in rolded red ink.) You had gun permit denial and race-baiting on the brain then, and now too, supposedly.  Tom I think you know better.

 

But let's not be mindless, and personal, let's just sort the thread title instead. You precipitated the act of Dylann Roof with eighty days of intense race-baiting. That was media hate speech, to a certain degree. Dylann just took the same bullshit further. You would have been considered a wise mentor by him if he can read and if he had ever read SAILING ANACRHY.

Since you keep dragging race into our threads, we're gonna sort this.  :P  

All edgy race-baiter content can now be properly transferred to this thread. Thanks, Jeffie, for the thread title. Miss ya.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:
On 3/7/2020 at 7:17 AM, jocal505 said:

, Tom, when you run around the forums with red spew, for five years, is that hate speech on the media?

Do you mean this, Joe Calhoun?

(Tom's favorite racebaiter gag, been on OCD for five years, needs either more or less swamp gas, given the high voltage wires on the property)


I agree that it's "spew" and that you colored it red, but the question that would be relevant to this thread is: is The Ed responsible for it? I don't think so. I think you are. But don't worry. You're grabby, I'm not, so anything you say or do will be happily excused here.

the red and bolded comes from Tom Ray himself, see page one of dogballs' 2014 race-baiter thread. Ahem, you were trolling Mark K with MLK, in red Ink, ffs.  This is you, buddy, and it was exactly one year before Dylann Roof.

Quote
  On 6/8/2014 at 2:47 AM, Tom Ray said:
I'll bold and highlight in red this time.

Post 77 (To Mark K) Does anyone want to guess at the reason Martin Luther King's concealed weapons permit was denied?

I already know the answer, but will entertain guesses for a while before revealing it.

Tom even doubles down with the red ink race-baiting on P 1. The font color came from you,Tom, and I was trolling you with it. I guess you didn't get it.

Quote

 

Post 83 (To Mark K) Any idea why MLK's application for a CWP was denied?

All that shit is about the fact that you won't answer that question.

****

(To Mark K) True, but doesn't address the question. Any idea why his application for a CWP was denied? Even a wildass guess?

hmmm, dogballs the redneck triples down with red ink. It was also race baiting in 2014, IMO, when taken as part of a pattern.

But five years of spew, Tom? Whew.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not feel the love, not from the dogballs @Plenipotentiary Tom. My dog whistle is strong, but he slipped away. 

 

Anyway, to go full thread title, I reflect that hate speech is like racism, it has elements, and many degrees. Motives matter, they may be what define hate speech.

I am merely searching for the motive behind a blogger within my daily reading material, meaning SAILNG ANARCHY. I am an average, unique free spirit, I thrive on liberty. I like hot sailboats, & I'm searching for the high-minded...and I found this buffoon.

He cuts it in my rowdy group, so wooh hoo, now I can surf on his acceptance, until Dylan Roof Day June 17.

Quote

 

Let's play DRED SCOTT'S REVENGE

        35 results for Tom "dogballs" Ray

  • 2019 Sixteen Dreds/yr.
  • 2018 Thirteen Dreds/yr.
  • 2017 Three Dreds/yr.
  • 2016 none
  • 2015 none
  • 2012 One Dred: THE ORIGINAL 

Corporations Are People

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Plenipotentiary Tom's topic in Political Anarchy

...Dred Scott. We had to fight a war and pass a Constitutional amendment to overturn that precedent. Button is just more case law. Your argument is inductive but go back to your basis step. Dartmouth College v. Woodward. Case law. It gives Corporations the right of contract. I have no idea… April 14, 2012

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Barr's Best Practices Are Coming
 

Quote

 

...

The real power of the EARN IT Act is conditioning legal liability protection on to-be-determined rules that can be changed based on the whims of an unelected team of bureaucrats, corporate cronies, and well-connected activists.

The commission's rules would not be legally binding, but failure to follow them would mean losing Section 230 protection for civil lawsuits and state charges related to sexual content involving the underage. In that case, tech companies can expect an onslaught of civil suits from lawyers willing to further exploit child sex abuse victims and charges from state attorneys general looking to make names for themselves. (Remember, all it takes is for high schoolers to have used a platform's private messaging tools to exchange explicit photos with one another and a site is liable.) Some would go out of business, while independent startups may never be able to get off the ground in the first place.

The great paradox is that whichever way companies could react to mitigate this risk is bad news for users and bad for stopping the spread of exploitative and illegal material. Their options are to clamp down on users and content across the board, hoping to somehow filter out anything bad, or to relax reporting and moderation policiesopening up platforms for even wider distribution of criminal and abusive content—in order to try and avoid liability that turns on staff having received notice of that content.

The 15-member commission would be chosen by the U.S. attorney general, who also has the option of entirely rewriting the commission's rules.

That means Bill Barr "could single-handedly rewrite the 'best practices' to state that any provider that offers end-to-end encryption is categorically excluded from taking advantage of this safe-harbor option," points out Pfefferkorn. "Or he could simply refuse to certify a set of best practices that aren't sufficiently condemnatory of encryption. If the AG doesn't finalize a set of best practices, then this entire safe harbor option just vanishes."

...

 

Where's distrust of Barr when we need it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Bill Barr's Best Practices Are Coming
 

Where's distrust of Barr when we need it?

where is a saddle for poor dred when you need it? no social media hate speech accountability just dogballs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ishmael said:

It's a done deal. Fucking snowflake. This is the thin edge of the wedge.

 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Policy.  Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy.  Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution.  The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.

In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet.  This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic.  When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power.  They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.

The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology.  Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms.  As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.

As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes.  It is essential to sustaining our democracy.

Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse.  Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.

Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias.  As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet.  As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets.  Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.

At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China.  One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance.  It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military.  Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights.  They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.

As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice.  We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.

Sec. 2Protections Against Online Censorship.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet.  Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)).  47 U.S.C. 230(c).  It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.

Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation.  As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content.  In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material.  The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.”  47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3).  The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.

In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.”  It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree.  Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike.  When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct.  It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.

(b)  To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard.  In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:

(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;

(ii)  the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:

(A)  deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or

(B)  taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and

(iii)  any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.

Sec. 3.  Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech.  (a)  The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms.  Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.

(b)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

(c)  The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.

Sec. 4.  Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech.  The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.”  Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017).  Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders.  These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate.  Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).

(b)  In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship.  In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints.  The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

(c)  The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code.  Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.

(d)  For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order.  The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.

Sec. 5.  State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws.  (a)  The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices.  The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:

(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;

(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;

(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;

(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and

(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.

Sec. 6Legislation.  The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.

Sec. 7.  Definition.  For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.

Sec. 8.  General Provisions. (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)    the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)   the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/

 


That's from a thread that is specifically about Trump's order, thanks to Ish for posting it. It's part of the ongoing efforts to undo Section 230 that I have talked about in this thread, so I brought it here.

Feeling optimistic this morning and the bright side I can find is that Trump's order will result in a backlash that at least diverts the TeamD opponents of Section 230.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Australian Court Rules Media Outlets Are Responsible for Facebook Users' Comments
 

Quote

 

...

The Court of Appeal for New South Wales has just dismissed an attempt by several Australian media outlets to overturn a 2019 ruling that they could be held liable for Facebook comments about Dylan Voller.

In 2016, a television program aired footage of Voller shackled in a restraining chair. The coverage led to a national outrage about the mistreatment of youth in Australian detention systems. Voller then sued some of the media outlets that covered him—not because the news reports defamed him, but because other people writing on the outlets' Facebook pages were accusing him of having committed various crimes.

Australian courts have not yet ruled on whether these comments defamed Voller. This fight is about whether media outlets could even be sued for Facebook comments.

The outlets argue that they're not the "publishers" of what people say on Facebook and, in fact, that Facebook does not let them preemptively stop individual readers from posting comments on their page. They do have the option to delete, hide, or report individual comments, but only after they've been posted. Facebook comments are not like letters to the editor that they can choose whether or not to run.

But the fact that these outlets have the ability to delete comments after the fact was enough for Judge John Basten to declare them publishers: "They facilitated the posting of comments on articles published in their newspapers and had sufficient control over the platform to be able to delete postings when they became aware that they were defamatory." Based on that logic, the media outlets "facilitated" the posting of comments simply by sharing the articles on Facebook.

...

Even if media outlets are able to bolster their social media monitoring presence, they'll be asked to make snap decisions on what's defamatory and respond immediately. When media outlets act as publishers and are concerned with possible libel or defamation within news stories, these pieces typically go through several editors (and sometimes even lawyers) before they are published. Sometimes the outlets get sued anyway, and sometimes their internal analysis turns out to be wrong. The most logical result of this ruling is that outlets will delete any comment that says anything critical about anybody in a story or report they've shared on Facebook, regardless of whether or not it's actually defamatory, because they can't prereview them. Who can afford that level of risk?

This is precisely why the attacks on Section 230 of America's Communications Decency Act are so extremely misguided. If you hold social media platforms and/or media outlets legally liable for commenters, it's not going to lead to some sort of politically neutral or "unbiased" moderation that protects unpopular opinions from getting deleted. It will lead to much more censorship. It will probably kill off some comment forums altogether.

Even if these reckless attacks on Section 230 fail, what's happening in Australia can still affect Americans. Countries across the world have been aggressively trying to force websites, search engines, and social media platforms to censor content in a way that crosses virtual borders and affects what people in other nations can see. Last year the European Court of Justice ordered that Facebook must censor any comments posted from anywhere in the world that spoke critically of an Austrian Green Party politician.

...

 

The European Court of Justice's order doesn't seem to be working all that well. My post saying that Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek is a corrupt oaf is still on Facebook.

I wonder if The Ed can afford to risk continuing to allow Aussies to post here?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

 

I wonder if The Ed can afford to risk continuing to allow Aussies to post here?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2019 at 4:50 AM, astro said:

image.png.9e4133e255576f37b3d0667a7d1d4e39.png

I've always said Fuchaberg is the Anti -christ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a local FB page aimed at our town, some punk Reichistas posted scary stuff 

prior to a BLM march we had yesterday - to the effect that bus loads of Antifas were 

on their way here to bust up the town and the National Guard was mobilizing. 

It was all lies - the march (a big one!) went off totally peacefully (Sandusky, Ohio).  

But a number of businesses spent considerable money on security and plywood 

sheets over windows in expectation of the worst. 

Those punk Reichista posters should be arrested and changed with incitement. 

They cost our town real money, which we cannot afford. 

I don't much care how it is done, but the FB/social media lies need to stop. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Devin Nunes' Cow might be a real threat, but Twitter isn't.
 

Quote

 

A judge has dismissed California Republican Rep. Devin Nunes' claims against Twitter, in which the former House Intelligence Chairman sought to hold the social media site responsible for allegedly defamatory tweets about him from political strategist Liz Mair and parody accounts @DevinNunesMom and @DevinCow. Nunes "seeks to have the court treat Twitter as the publisher or speaker of the content provided by others based on its allowing or not allowing certain content to be on its internet platform," wrote Judge John Marshall of Henrico County, Virginia, in his decision. "The court refuses to do so."

The lawsuit may, however, proceed against Mair, @DevinCow, and @DevinNunesMom. In other words, it may proceed against the entities whom Nunes accuses of doing the supposed defaming, not the digital forum that merely served as a conduit for said speech.

Judge Marshall rejected Nunes' argument that Section 230—the federal law shielding internet companies from some legal liability for things created by their users or customers—did not apply in this case because of Twitter's supposed bias against conservatives. That's because (contrary to current conservative talking points) there's actually no neutrality requirement in Section 230.

...

 

Hooray for judges that actually read laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When does Social media hate speech become a real Threat???

When we put Lindsey Graham in charge of it, according to the ACLU.
 

Quote

 

After a month of unprecedented protests against police brutality across the country, in which encrypted communications have been essential for organizers and protesters to communicate safely, the Senate Judiciary Committee plans to take up a bill that will strike at the heart of encrypted communications and undermine free expression on the internet. The Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act of 2020 (EARN IT Act) amends an existing federal law to force online platforms into changing how they moderate content online by scanning and censoring more of their users’ communications.

In addition to the harms against protesters, the EARN IT Act — like SESTA/FOSTA, which amended the same provision a few years ago — threatens our online speech and privacy rights in ways that will disproportionately harm LGBTQ people, sex workers and others who use the internet to privately communicate and share information and resources. The Senate Judiciary Committee is getting ready to vote on it on Thursday, July 2. We sent a letter yesterday urging committee members to vote against this dangerous bill.

...

 

Unfortunately, blessed bipartisan unity was achieved yesterday.
 

Quote

 

Bad news for freedom lovers as we approach Independence Day weekend: A bill compromising online speech and privacy just passed unanimously in the Senate's Judiciary Committee.

The "Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies [EARN IT] Act of 2020" purports to fight the spread of child pornography online. Page after page of the bill references child pornography and online child sexual exploitation as its reason for existence.

But what it actually does is create a federal commission that devises "best practices" policies that tech companies are expected to follow.

...

There is a piece of good news about this bad bill. In response to concerns that the EARN IT Act would force tech platforms to create encryption "back doors" so federal investigators can bypass protections, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D–Vt.) introduced an amendment specifying that the implementation of end-to-end encryption does not count as a violation of these regulations and does not give rise to civil and criminal liability. The amendment was approved and added to the bill.

...

 

Glad to see that Sen. Leahy is not a back door man.

I wonder if showing a wife or girlfriend's tits is consistent with Lindsey's "best practices" that social media outlets are expected to follow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Online Censorship and Viewpoint Suppression Act
 

Quote

 

...The Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act, introduced by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Roger Wicker (R-MS), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), would strip away the liability protection provided by Section 230 if a platform restricted access to content without providing specific rules that it violated. The bill would require platforms to have an “objectively reasonable belief” that content violated a specific policy in order for it to be removed, or they could be held liable for their moderation actions.

...“Social media companies are routinely censoring content that to many, should be considered valid political speech,” Graham whined in a statement Tuesday. “This reform proposal addresses the concerns of those who feel like their political views are being unfairly suppressed.”

 

OK so maybe I edited a word in that second paragraph for accuracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New FCC Nominee Has Already Been Helping Trump Try To Censor Social Media

Quote


Trump nominates Nathan Simington to Federal Communications Commission (FCC). When both presidential contenders—incumbent President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden—want to repeal Section 230 of federal communications law, it's perhaps the best indicator that doing so is a bad idea. As First Amendment lawyer and law professor Eric Goldman put it earlier this summer: "Turns out that censorship is a bipartisan objective."

The popularity among politicians for destroying this free speech-protective law proves yet again how appealing censorship is to both Republicans and Democrats. It seems like every week in 2020, we get a new and devastating reminder of this unfortunate fact. Today, it comes in the form of Trump's new nominee for Federal Communications Commission commissioner: Nathan Simington.

The first sign that this is no good for social media and the internet is that Simington is a veteran telecom lawyer. But he's not just any telecom lawyer. "Simington, a senior adviser at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), played a significant role in drafting a petition required under the Trump administration's social media executive order issued over the summer," reports The Verge. That NTIA petition was central to Trump's gambit to get the FCC to reinterpret Section 230. (Read more about Trump's overreaching and yet also relatively toothless order here.)

"Simington's nomination marks a significant break in the Trump administration's former FCC nominations," notes The Verge's Makena Kelly. "Previously, the administration has nominated Republican commissioners in favor of light-touch telecommunications and technology policy." And "if Simington's nomination is approved in the Senate, the FCC would have two Republican commissioners likely in favor of voting to approve the administration's social media order," Kelly points out.

Simington would take the place of FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly, who describes himself as "extremely dedicated to First Amendment" and—unlike some of his colleagues—has declined to be a total Trump bootlicker. Trump had nominated O'Rielly for a third term as an FCC commissioner until O'Rielly gave a speech critical of Trump administration tech and speech policy in July. The White House promptly announced that it was pulling O'Rielly's nomination.

"In other words, the White House is being a petty asshole, again, and firing anyone for not being in lockstep with the President's ridiculous unconstitutional whims," commented Mike Masnick at Techdirt.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.), one of the co-authors of Section 230, told The Verge that Trump's order is wrong about how Section 230 works (and so are politicians like Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Ted Cruz of Texas). "What Chris Cox and I tried to do in Section 230, I think it's still valid today, is we wanted to empower free speech and moderation. These other ideas have one thing in common. They would restrict free speech in order to force moderation," said Wyden in August.

 

Offered with the usual apology for posting more Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New FCC Nominee Has Already Been Helping Trump Try To Censor Social Media

Quote


Trump nominates Nathan Simington to Federal Communications Commission (FCC). When both presidential contenders—incumbent President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden—want to repeal Section 230 of federal communications law, it's perhaps the best indicator that doing so is a bad idea. As First Amendment lawyer and law professor Eric Goldman put it earlier this summer: "Turns out that censorship is a bipartisan objective."

The popularity among politicians for destroying this free speech-protective law proves yet again how appealing censorship is to both Republicans and Democrats. It seems like every week in 2020, we get a new and devastating reminder of this unfortunate fact. Today, it comes in the form of Trump's new nominee for Federal Communications Commission commissioner: Nathan Simington.

The first sign that this is no good for social media and the internet is that Simington is a veteran telecom lawyer. But he's not just any telecom lawyer. "Simington, a senior adviser at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), played a significant role in drafting a petition required under the Trump administration's social media executive order issued over the summer," reports The Verge. That NTIA petition was central to Trump's gambit to get the FCC to reinterpret Section 230. (Read more about Trump's overreaching and yet also relatively toothless order here.)

"Simington's nomination marks a significant break in the Trump administration's former FCC nominations," notes The Verge's Makena Kelly. "Previously, the administration has nominated Republican commissioners in favor of light-touch telecommunications and technology policy." And "if Simington's nomination is approved in the Senate, the FCC would have two Republican commissioners likely in favor of voting to approve the administration's social media order," Kelly points out.

Simington would take the place of FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly, who describes himself as "extremely dedicated to First Amendment" and—unlike some of his colleagues—has declined to be a total Trump bootlicker. Trump had nominated O'Rielly for a third term as an FCC commissioner until O'Rielly gave a speech critical of Trump administration tech and speech policy in July. The White House promptly announced that it was pulling O'Rielly's nomination.

"In other words, the White House is being a petty asshole, again, and firing anyone for not being in lockstep with the President's ridiculous unconstitutional whims," commented Mike Masnick at Techdirt.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.), one of the co-authors of Section 230, told The Verge that Trump's order is wrong about how Section 230 works (and so are politicians like Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Ted Cruz of Texas). "What Chris Cox and I tried to do in Section 230, I think it's still valid today, is we wanted to empower free speech and moderation. These other ideas have one thing in common. They would restrict free speech in order to force moderation," said Wyden in August.

 

Offered with the usual apology for posting more Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When does Social media hate speech become a real Threat???

When the DOJ rewrites Section 230 to conform to Trump's erroneous interpretation of it.
 

Quote

 

...

Under the DOJ proposal, employees and users of online services could only "restrict access to" content if "the provider or user has an objective reasonable belief" that a specific piece of content "violates its terms of service or use" or falls into one of a few categories. While the DOJ doesn't provide an example of content that is currently restricted but that would be unrestricted under the version of Section 230 it wants Congress to pass, it's possible the new language is meant to appease prominent Republicans who believe popular social media platforms have arbitrarily banned conservatives and that politics-based content shouldn't be allowed.

As it stands now, a web platform's "terms of service or use" have no bearing on Section 230 protection—although President Donald Trump acted as if they did in a recent executive order concerning Twitter. Despite what Trump suggested, Twitter doesn't (yet) risk losing Section 230 protection if it can't prove that every single suppressed tweet was treated in strict accordance with a specific plank of its terms of service.

It seems the Justice Department is now pushing to revise federal law to conform the law itself to the president's (currently erroneous) interpretation of Section 230.

...

These proposals fly in the face of the main problem Section 230 was created to address, which was the "moderator's dilemma." In trying to filter out any content created or uploaded by users, a digital service risked becoming legally liable for whatever defamation, obscenity, or otherwise illegal content it allowed through. Without Section 230 protections, a digital service like Facebook or Twitter would be better off filtering no user content, for any reason, or dedicating a vast amount of resources to vetting essentially all user content and only allowing the most anodyne through.

Neither option is desirable, which is why Section 230's first part declares that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"—i.e., Facebook is not automatically responsible for your speech, and you're not automatically responsible for the speech of every other Facebook user.

Section 230's second part—the "Good Samaritan" clause—says that neither internet services nor their users will lose this protection over attempts "to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable."

These two protections mean that a service provider can host a forum for another person without necessarily being responsible for what that person says in the forum, and that the service provider can restrict some of what gets said in the forum it owns without taking on liability for forum content it doesn't remove or restrict.

...

 

Offered with the usual apology for posting more Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When does Social media hate speech become a real Threat???

When Trump Tweets.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Popehat says that Section 230 Is The Subject of The Most Effective Legal Propaganda I've Ever Seen
 

Quote

 

...

accurate descriptions of what Section 230 says, and what it does, are usually overwhelmed by misconceptions (the charitable interpretation) or lies and propaganda (the more accurate one). Some of the most prominent politicians in the country — notably Senator Ted Cruz — routinely lie to the public about what the law says and how courts have interpreted it. Among the most common lies: Section 230 requires sites to choose between being a “platform” or “publisher”, Section 230 requires sites to moderate content in a neutral fashion, Section 230 is some sort of “gift” to the tech industry, and sites lose Section 230 protections if they demonstrate a viewpoint. These are not just different takes on the law, or arguable interpretations. These are flat-out lies. Section 230 doesn’t say any of that and every court to rule has rejected those hot takes.

Will I explain all of Section 230 to you today? No. But I will give you clear, accurate, reliable resources you can read to understand it. Here they are:

...

 

He links to 5 articles, one of which I already posted here, but I haven't read the other four yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But before those, the relevant part of the law...

Quote

 

(2) Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A)
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)
any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

 

 
"Otherwise objectionable" casts a pretty wide net.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what you're trying to say, Tom.  Can you boil it down to an executive summary, please?  TIA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

 

"Otherwise objectionable" casts a pretty wide net.

You are a master of the supremely obvious!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

Not sure what you're trying to say, Tom.  Can you boil it down to an executive summary, please?  TIA.

You've chosen to ignore content by Quotidian Tom. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Not sure what you're trying to say, Tom.  Can you boil it down to an executive summary, please?  TIA.

I'd suggest reading the link at post 273 and the articles to which it links.

But as a summary, if the moderators of this place decide that using examples of some "assault weapons" (like the Ruger 10-22 with adjustable stock) is objectionable and they want to censor that kind of discussion, but using examples of other "assault weapons" (like the AR's and AK's that the gungrabby chorus reference endlessly) is not objectionable, they're free to censor in that way. Yes, even though it's viewpoint-based censorship and even though we're talking about a constitutional right.

Similarly, if Facebook and Twitter think the NY Post article about alleged emails is "otherwise objectionable" they can suppress that discussion if they want. They should not be called before Congress to explain that decision. "It's otherwise objectionable" is an acceptable explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quotidian Tom said:

But as a summary, if the moderators of this place decide that using examples of some "assault weapons" (like the Ruger 10-22 with adjustable stock) is objectionable

No Tom, they just think you are a fucking shill, like I do.  On a paid gig to protect the dogballs industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, astro said:

No Tom, they just think you are a fucking shill, like I do.  On a paid gig to protect the dogballs industry.

If that were true, they're also free to ban me, like they did your "random" character. But I've never even gotten a time out here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Quotidian Tom said:

If that were true, they're also free to ban me, like they did your "random" character. But I've never even gotten a time out here.

 

I made the mistake of calling out a cop, before Floyd.

No one cares about your gun hawking Tom.  You have no credibility here, I have exposed your bullshit several times but it's too easy, the challenge isn't there now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 10/23/2020 at 2:55 AM, astro said:

But I've never even gotten a time out here.

Alas, Dabs did not fare as well. 

Quote

Search >NAACP>Dogballs, 2019, sixty four (of 166 total) examples

 

  1. ACLU Opposes DISCLOSE Act
    Plenipotentiary Tom posted a topic in Political Anarchy
    ...Citizens United Inc (or ACLU Inc orNAACP Inc) decided to broadcast some propaganda mentioning a candidate, the law would make that illegal. And for some reason, the ACLU has a problem with this. I do too and applaud them for saying so. March 7, 2019
  2. FAIR Act to Reform Asset Seizure Laws
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Plenipotentiary Tom's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...recognized inNAACP v Button, to express themselves politically by filing civil rights lawsuits? I'm pretty sure they do. February 7
  3. Corporations Are People
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Plenipotentiary Tom's topic in Political Anarchy
    Was the Supreme Court wrong to recognizeNAACP Inc's corporate first amendment rights in 1963? February 4
  4. Corporations Are People
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Plenipotentiary Tom's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...Who else talks aboutNAACP vs Button at all? You wouldn't know about it if not for me. TeamD types don't wish to celebrate corporate first amendment rights and TeamR types don't wish to celebrate 1960's civil rights victories of theNAACP so you're left with no info from most people on this site. January 15
  5. Corporations Are People
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Plenipotentiary Tom's topic in Political Anarchy
    Was the Supreme Court wrong to recognizeNAACP Inc's corporate first amendment rights in 1963?January 15 2019
  6. Corporations Are People
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Plenipotentiary Tom's topic in Political Anarchy
    Happy Anniversary to theNAACP as I again celebrate the recognition of its corporate first amendment rights on this day 56 years ago. January 14
  7. ACLU Opposes DISCLOSE Act
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Plenipotentiary Tom's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...lest Tom come here telling us that the ACLU and theNAACP will be unduly discriminated against. I also think that campaign donations to a candidate should be strictly limited to the constituents that that person will supposedly represent. So if its a US House seat - ONLY those who phys...December 15, 2019
  8. Google bans false political ads
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to a topic in Political Anarchy
    ...NAACP , and Citizens United will continue to be able to expre$$ themselves, so that's good. December 1, 2019
  9. Oh Looky - NY Sheriffs Association responds to Cuomo's gun laws.
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to a topic in Political Anarchy
    ...SCOTUS said so inNAACP vs Button. InNAACP v Alabama, SCOTUS recognized that disclosingNAACP membership could be extremely hazardous to your health in 1950's Alabama. These same Senators would see the problem with overturning those precedents, but for the TeamD tendency to abandon all p… August 14, 2019
  10. Sorkin Calls Out Zuckerberg
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to lasal's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...very few of us celebrateNAACP Inc's corporate first amendment rights victory in the Button case.November 6, 2019
  11. Cellphones and the 4th Amendment
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Plenipotentiary Tom's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...non-pre$$ corporations like theNAACP and Citizens United have first amendment rights. Do they have fourth amendment rights? I think it said in the press release from IJ that the "it's about safety checks" argument had been tried. The thing is, they never, ever used the GPS tracking for that p… October 18, 2019
  12. ACLU Opposes DISCLOSE Act
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Plenipotentiary Tom's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...By speaking collectively through corporations like theNAACP , ACLU, and Citizens United. By the way, the nonsense of the whole "they, them" thing appeals to me so I want everyone to use those pronouns for me from now on. Wait, for us from now on.September 21, 2019
  13. partisan supreme court judges.
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Ease the sheet.'s topic in Political Anarchy
    ...I just quoted the first one because I like it when a case establishing corporate first amendment rights likeNAACP v Button did is cited.vSeptember 15, 2019
  14. Oh Looky - NY Sheriffs Association responds to Cuomo's gun laws.
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to a topic in Political Anarchy
    ...A First Amendment analogy would be arguing that becauseNAACP v Button was aboutNAACP Inc exercising its corporate first amendment rights by filing civil rights lawsuits, that is the only form of corporate expre$$ion that can ever fall under first amendment protection. Like a lot of grab… June 2, 2019
  15. Are Illegal Immigrants Also The People?
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Plenipotentiary Tom's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...NAACP OK, so I made up the third issue. August 29, 2019
  16. Liberal Media A Myth
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Jules's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...non-pre$$ corporations like theNAACP and Citizens United. Are they really so special? August 2, 2019
  17. Kelo v. City of New London,
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to frank james's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...Lots of people around here rail against the precedent established inNAACP v Button saying that non-profit, non-pre$$ corporations have first amendment rights. They usually mistakenly attribute that precedent to Citizens United and shut right up when I ask about theNAACP , but they at least sometim… March 28, 2019
  18. The Wall
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Spatial Ed's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...Instead they engaged in a tradition that continued in Citizens United: citingNAACP vs Button. Do you think the first amendment should apply to NY Times Inc? How aboutNAACP Inc? Why or why not? I didn't quote anything, just gave a source to an opinion I had read. So you don't...March 15, 2019
  19. 250 million lawsuit against WAPO, just the beginning
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to The Joker's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...which allowed media corporations to spend money talking about candidates but did not allow non-profit corporations like Citizens United or theNAACP to do the same. Podcasts were in the same boat as non-profits under the law: no special protection because they're not "media corporations." The… March 13, 2019
  20. ACLU Opposes DISCLOSE Act
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Plenipotentiary Tom's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...as inNAACP vs Alabama? That's a First Amendment thingy too, isn't it? You seem to have lots of thoughts (baseless, of course) about what I might think. Do you have any thoughts at all on things unrelated to me, like the ACLU's position on the DISCLOSE Act and other parts of HR 1? Or… March 8, 2019
  21. A Call to Arms! Stop the Shit flinging!
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to ILYB-Todd's topic in Political Anarchy
    A rare individual member (or twins) from theNAACP might relax and pleasure me like Erie. The group, not so much. Like all politics, it’s about self interest. Is it? So when theNAACP expre$$ed themselves by filing civil rights lawsuits and the Supreme Court recognized their corpo… March 2, 2019
  22. ACLU Opposes DISCLOSE Act
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Plenipotentiary Tom's topic in Political Anarchy
    ACLU Free Speech Victory It's OK to call a cop a "stupid sum bitch" on Facebook, at least in the USA. I think that's a good thing. That's mildly offensive and not threatening at all. Glad the ACLU and the court agreed. As always, I love it when a corporation… July 10, 2019
  23. Horrible decision by the Supreme Court
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to a topic in Political Anarchy
    ...Just because I was able to influence the Supreme Court to recognize theNAACP 's corporate first amendment rights prior to my birth, don't think it means I know everything you're thinking. I really don't know what you're thinking about, which is different from not knowing history.... February 15, 2019
  24. Liz Warren is in !!
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to AJ Oliver's topic in Political Anarchy
    Is that what I did in posting the Supreme Court's 1963 holding thatNAACP Inc has corporate first amendment rights? I don't see how that places human first amendment rights above or below those of corporations. I think both are important and your guess that I support one more than the other is… February 14, 2019
  25. Horrible decision by the Supreme Court
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to a topic in Political Anarchy
    ...One of the precedents cited in CU for the "novel" idea that corporations are "persons" for legal purposes wasNAACP vs Button in 1963, a case similar to CU in a number of ways. In that case, the Court said this aboutNAACP Inc: Your unawareness of that and many other prior tests of cor… February 9, 2019
  26. Horrible decision by the Supreme Court
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to a topic in Political Anarchy
    ...in which he citedNAACP v Button among the precedents for corporate first amendment rights. My thoughts question why Joe wants to talk about things he clearly hasn't read. June 25, 2019
  27. Almost Half of U.S. Families Can't Afford Basics Like Rent and Food
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to badlatitude's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...non-press corporations like theNAACP Inc. and Citizens United Inc. was a mistake and the court got it right saying no to that. May 29, 2019
  28. Horrible decision by the Supreme Court
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to a topic in Political Anarchy
    ...how about answering this question: I'm glad that SCOTUS recognized theNAACP 's corporate first amendment rights in 1963. Are you? May 17, 2019
  29. Horrible decision by the Supreme Court
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to a topic in Political Anarchy
    ...I'm glad that SCOTUS recognized theNAACP 's corporate first amendment rights in 1963. Are you? May 16, 2019
  30. White supremacy and the internet
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to a topic in Political Anarchy
    ...BecauseNAACP v Button was about the corporate first amendment right to sue, doncha know that's all the first could be about. If you're talking about the discredited "original intent" of "collective rights only" you should read what Lawrence Tribe had to say about that BEFORE the Heller case....March 22, 2019
  31. Cen$oring Google
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Plenipotentiary Tom's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...OrNAACP Inc. Facebook ran some of Warren's ads and did not immediately run the ones featuring their own logo. And this is the reason Warren needs to have politicians decide who should own and control the various parts of Facebook. March 16, 2019
  32. A Call to Arms! Stop the Shit flinging!
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to ILYB-Todd's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...NAACP Inc, and Citizens United, Inc.? March 1, 2019
  33. A Call to Arms! Stop the Shit flinging!
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to ILYB-Todd's topic in Political Anarchy
    Why is Lake Erie entitled to that distinction andNAACP Inc is not? March 1, 2019
  34. POTUS Takes Russians Side Vs FBI, CIA, etc.
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Gouvernail's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...TheNAACP , for example. Do you think the purpose of that corporation is just to raise capital? I don't. Why should we want to limit the power of corporations like theNAACP ? July 23, 2018
  35. A Call to Arms! Stop the Shit flinging!
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to ILYB-Todd's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...Same thing seems to happen when the corporation in question isNAACP Inc. In truth, any question related to the Waters of the United States is also interesting to me. February 26, 2019
  36. Trump contract with the people
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Lark's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...non-pre$$ corporations like Citizens United or theNAACP might want to expre$$ them$elve$, which is terrible bcause the first amendment doesn't apply to corporations. Or something. It's hard to espouse this stuff and make sense, even after I have had my second cup. Not much hope at this hour. February 19, 2019
  37. Horrible decision by the Supreme Court
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to a topic in Political Anarchy
    ...non-pre$$ corporations like Citizens United or theNAACP . They did it wrong by doing it at all in my opinion. If you forbid someone from spending his money ONLY if he's doing it for political expression and NEVER any other time, that's about political expression. All the stupid "speech is… February 17, 2019
  38. Uncooperative Californicators
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Plenipotentiary Tom's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...NAACP v Alabama. February 14, 2019
  39. Liz Warren is in !!
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to AJ Oliver's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...what I caused the Supreme Court to say was this: The bolded part is where I caused them to recognizeNAACP Inc's corporate first amendment rights. It's bad because I caused it, of course, but are there any other reasons February 13, 2019
  40. Bi-Partisan Constitutional Amendment To End Citizens United Introduced
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to badlatitude's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...like theNAACP . And Citizens United. February 13, 2019
  41. Bezos vs Pecker
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Sean's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...That's how I came to read the Citizens United opinion and learn about cases likeNAACP v Button that have escaped your attention. I think punishment for your ignorance should be that you can't return until you've read those opinions. And believe me, it's punishment. Absolutely mind numbing. Bu… February 13, 2019
  42. Bezos vs Pecker
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Sean's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...Where did you think I got the idea to start talking aboutNAACP vs Button? I got curious about the explicit holdings that people like Left Shift kept saying (and keep saying) did not exist, so I looked them up. The facts turned out not to have a liberal bias. February 12, 2019
  43. Bezos vs Pecker
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Sean's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...such asNAACP Inc or Citizens United Inc, must $hut up? February 11, 2019
  44. A Picture is Worth 1,000 Words
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Mid's topic in Political Anarchy
    If TeamR finds out about welfare going to corporations like theNAACP , they'll probably want to cut it. January 20, 2019
  45. Liz Warren is in !!
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to AJ Oliver's topic in Political Anarchy
    Is that what I did in posting the Supreme Court's 1963 holding thatNAACP Inc has corporate first amendment rights? I don't see how that places human first amendment rights above or below those of corporations. I think both are important and your guess that I support one more than the other is… February 14, 2019
  46. Horrible decision by the Supreme Court
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to a topic in Political Anarchy
    ...One of the precedents cited in CU for the "novel" idea that corporations are "persons" for legal purposes wasNAACP vs Button in 1963, a case similar to CU in a number of ways. In that case, the Court said this aboutNAACP Inc: Your unawareness of that and many other prior tests of cor… February 9, 2019
  47. Horrible decision by the Supreme Court
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to a topic in Political Anarchy
    ...in which he citedNAACP v Button among the precedents for corporate first amendment rights. My thoughts question why Joe wants to talk about things he clearly hasn't read. June 25, 2019
  48. Almost Half of U.S. Families Can't Afford Basics Like Rent and Food
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to badlatitude's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...non-press corporations like theNAACP Inc. and Citizens United Inc. was a mistake and the court got it right saying no to that. May 29, 2019
  49. Horrible decision by the Supreme Court
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to a topic in Political Anarchy
    ...how about answering this question: I'm glad that SCOTUS recognized theNAACP 's corporate first amendment rights in 1963. Are you May 17, 2019
  50. Horrible decision by the Supreme Court
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to a topic in Political Anarchy
    ...I'm glad that SCOTUS recognized theNAACP 's corporate first amendment rights in 1963. Are you? May 16, 2019
  51. White supremacy and the internet
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to a topic in Political Anarchy
    ...BecauseNAACP v Button was about the corporate first amendment right to sue, doncha know that's all the first could be about. If you're talking about the discredited "original intent" of "collective rights only" you should read what Lawrence Tribe had to say about that BEFORE the Heller case.... March 22, 2019
  52. Cen$oring Google
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Plenipotentiary Tom's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...OrNAACP Inc. Facebook ran some of Warren's ads and did not immediately run the ones featuring their own logo. And this is the reason Warren needs to have politicians decide who should own and control the various parts of Facebook. March 16, 2019
  53. A Call to Arms! Stop the Shit flinging!
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to ILYB-Todd's topic in Political Anarc...NAACP Inc, and Citizens United, Inc. March 1, 2019
  54. A Call to Arms! Stop the Shit flinging!
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to ILYB-Todd's topic in Political Anarchy
    Why is Lake Erie entitled to that distinction andNAACP Inc is not? March 1, 2019
  55. A Call to Arms! Stop the Shit flinging!
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to ILYB-Todd's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...Same thing seems to happen when the corporation in question isNAACP Inc. In truth, any question related to the Waters of the United States is also interesting to me. February 26, 2019
  56. Trump contract with the people
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Lark's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...non-pre$$ corporations like Citizens United or theNAACP might want to expre$$ them$elve$, which is terrible bcause the first amendment doesn't apply to corporations. Or something. It's hard to espouse this stuff and make sense, even after I have had my second cup. Not much hope at this hour. February 19, 2019
  57. Horrible decision by the Supreme Court
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to a topic in Political Anarchy
    ...non-pre$$ corporations like Citizens United or theNAACP . They did it wrong by doing it at all in my opinion. If you forbid someone from spending his money ONLY if he's doing it for political expression and NEVER any other time, that's about political expression. All the stupid "speech is… February 17, 2019
  58. Uncooperative Californicators
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Plenipotentiary Tom's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...NAACP v Alabama. February 14, 2019
  59. Liz Warren is in !!
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to AJ Oliver's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...what I caused the Supreme Court to say was this: The bolded part is where I caused them to recognizeNAACP Inc's corporate first amendment rights. It's bad because I caused it, of course, but are there any other reasons February 13, 2019
  60. Bi-Partisan Constitutional Amendment To End Citizens United Introduced
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to badlatitude's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...like theNAACP . And Citizens United.February 13, 2019
  61. Bezos vs Pecker
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Sean's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...That's how I came to read the Citizens United opinion and learn about cases likeNAACP v Button that have escaped your attention. I think punishment for your ignorance should be that you can't return until you've read those opinions. And believe me, it's punishment. Absolutely mind numbing. Bu… February 13, 2019
  62. Bezos vs Pecker
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Sean's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...Where did you think I got the idea to start talking aboutNAACP vs Button? I got curious about the explicit holdings that people like Left Shift kept saying (and keep saying) did not exist, so I looked them up. The facts turned out not to have a liberal bias. February 12, 2019
  63. Bezos vs Pecker
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Sean's topic in Political Anarchy
    ...such asNAACP Inc or Citizens United Inc, must $hut up? February 11, 2019
  64. A Picture is Worth 1,000 Words
    Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Mid's topic in Political Anarchy
    If TeamR finds out about welfare going to corporations like theNAACP , they'll probably want to cut it. January 20, 2019

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jocal505 said:
On 10/23/2020 at 7:55 PM, astro said:

But I've never even gotten a time out here.

Alas, Dabs did not fare as well. 

That's not what I said Joe, Tom said that, I have had timeouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, astro said:

That's not what I said Joe, Tom said that, I have had timeouts.

Yep, Tom has used the NAACP frequently, as a form of redneck deodorant. 

Sorry. My brain habits are not doing the job the software used to do. Not yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe's stalker database...... CREE PEE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... Trump is sounding a conciliatory note on a subject that has seen lots of blessed bipartisan unity.

Happy Thanksgiving to you too, loser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this past election has shown us that social media has been the real threat all along.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I think this past election has shown us that social media has been the real threat all along.  

If hateful rhetoric wasn't so appealing to so many, it wouldn't be

Perhaps humankind is doomed to be ruled by greed & cruelty, for almost all generations in all times; this would mean we should be thankful that we had a at least a glimpse of a better way

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Burning Man said:

I think this past election has shown us that social media has been the real threat all along.  

I didn't even see Rainbow Bernie once. How about you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ajit Pai on Net Neutrality, 5G, and Why He Wants To 'Clarify' Section 230
 

Quote

 

How much does President Donald Trump hate Section 230, the controversial law that gives internet service providers, website operators, and social media platforms broad immunity from legal responsibility for user-generated content? He's threatened to veto funding for the military unless Congress "completely terminates" the law, which also allows social media sites to moderate or ban speech they don't like.

Trump is joined in his contempt for Section 230 by President-elect Joe Biden, who earlier this year said the law should be "revoked immediately." Democrats argue that Section 230 allows hate speech and misinformation to proliferate and throw elections, while Republicans say that it's used to squelch conservative voices in the public square. What comes next?

Enter Ajit Pail, the chairman of the Federal Communication Commission. In October, after President Trump went on a tear about Twitter and Facebook restricting access to a New York Post story critical of Joe Biden's son Hunter, Pai said the FCC would be looking to clarify Section 230. Even though he's announced he's stepping down on January 20th and that Congress has ultimate responsibility for passing laws governing online speech, what Pai does in his final weeks could have a lasting impact.

...

 

There's a 48 minute podcast interview with Pai at the link but I'm not listening to it. I wish there was a transcript.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this