martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 82,345
- 33,789
Of course they are. They’re the ones preparing and maintaining the content and distributing it to others.
How is that not publishing?
Because they admit themselves they are not publishers.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Of course they are. They’re the ones preparing and maintaining the content and distributing it to others.
How is that not publishing?
Who cares if they want to or not. A law saying they have to wouldn’t be constitutional.I would think a newspaper would want to, especially a presidential candidate.
Newspapers are not social media. For someone who keeps trying to imply they are modern concept savvy, your comparisons to oldtech are pretty luddite-ish.
Who cares if they want to or not. A law saying they have to wouldn’t be constitutional.
News papers are a LOT more similar to social media than a damn electric company, FFS. For the purposes of the discussion, what are the relevant differences? A candidate NEEDS access to the electorate. The electorate NEEDS access to a candidate. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a fair election, right?
Cool. So pass a law that says the editorials produced by political candidates are not subject to defamation cases against the newspaper.As a newspaper is a publisher, even if the editorials are not theirs, they take responsibility for them, as the actively decide what to publish.
Have any newspapers done a total ban on reporting on a candidate?
Cool. So pass a law that says the editorials produced by political candidates are not subject to defamation cases against the newspaper.
Then force them to carry the editorial of the candidate.
It would still be very unconstitutional.
No, the editorial is written by a political candidate. It's not the newspaper's speech.Because it's their speech.
Twitter et al have freely admitted the content on their site is not theirs unless they explicitly say it is, i.e twitter posting as twitter.
No, the editorial is written by a political candidate. It's not the newspaper's speech.
Whether they deny being a publisher or not is irrelevant. You aren't a publisher because of what you say but because of what you do.But they don't deny they are publishing it. They say the opinions are not their own, but they don't deny being a publisher.
Whether they deny being a publisher or not is irrelevant. You aren't a publisher because of what you say but because of what you do.
Printing the editorial and delivering it to customers is the same as writing code to display tweets and distributing them to users.
No, what they say and what they do is NOT the same thing legally. This is a mind numbingly stupid statement.what they say and do is the same thing legally.
Again, newspapers don't deny publishing their entire paper, social media sites deny publishing entirely.
Colfax sees no problem as long as something benefits the party of his masters and will try to twist anythi8ng to fit his desires. He wantss to be part of the ruling elite and will not admit to their failures along the way.Fox news doesn't have the share of social media twitter does, and again, not the same thing.
Just admit you want advantages for your candidate. All the trussed up corporate freedom crap is fucking bullshit.
Would that be why you choose the side of false comments and lies.But if people are only getting “one side” it’s not because they don’t have access to the other side.
That’s a personal choice.
What a wannabe lawyer, still trying and failing to make words mean just what he wants and ignoring the truth at all costs.No, what they say and what they do is NOT the same thing legally. This is a mind numbingly stupid statement.
Hypothetically, if a newspaper did deny they are a publisher, it would be irrelevant because saying so doesn't make it true.
As for the social media sites, they actually do say they publish material.
You're confused.What a wannabe lawyer, still trying and failing to make words mean just what he wants and ignoring the truth at all costs.
As usual, any stupid statement comes from you and you are to stupid to realize it.
No, what they say and what they do is NOT the same thing legally. This is a mind numbingly stupid statement.
Hypothetically, if a newspaper did deny they are a publisher, it would be irrelevant because saying so doesn't make it true.
As for the social media sites, they actually do say they publish material.
Its the US flag and the military. Two things that democrats hate.
That's the argument you've been making.So as long as I say "I am not a murderer" I can't be convicted of Murder?
That's the argument you've been making.
You keep saying that social media sites say they're not publishers (which is barely half true) and so they're not publishers and therefore no first amendment concerns.
Social media platforms are publishers because they publish content. They're not publishers for purposes of liability for civil lawsuits only. That's merely a statutory definition.
Which is why if you passed a law saying a newspaper has to publish an oped from a candidate, it would be a violation of the first amendment even if you gave that newspaper immunity from lawsuits for doing so.
The reason they're not a publisher for purposes of civil liability is because of section 230.That's the argument you are making "I can be a publisher and not be a legal publisher at the same time"
For "reasons"
They can't separate the two if they want constitutional protections, sorry but constitutional law is still law.
View attachment 583008 One person in Salem Oregon complained about the Iwo Jima mural on the man’s business on private property.
City says remove it or get fined.
Who said Democrats were fascist America haters?
![]()
Far Left Mayor Demands Removal of Private, Iwo Jima Flag-Raising Mural. - The National Pulse
The Democratic Mayor of Salem, Oregon – Chuck Bennett – has ordered the removal of a private business owner’s mural depicting the iconic, patriotic flag-raising at Iwo Jima during WWII. The mural is painted on the side of Valley Roofing in Salem, Oregon, which is privately owned by local...thenationalpulse.com