7000-1. Guess Who Won

[colfax_m]

BTW, noted that you never address direct comments on what you claim, only attempt to dodge and twist out of the way.

You have repeatedly lied about what I've claimed.

 

[Catman51]

You have repeatedly lied about what I've claimed.

Just what a liar would say when confronted with the truth. Of course, you don't recognize the truth now, if you ever did.

And you still haven't responded to what I have said. Can't think of the right lies to cover yourself?

 

[colfax_m]

Just what a liar would say when confronted with the truth. Of course, you don't recognize the truth now, if you ever did.

And you still haven't responded to what I have said. Can't think of the right lies to cover yourself?

I gave you a very informative article. If you take issue with any of the statements in it let me know.

 

[Catman51]

I gave you a very informative article. If you take issue with any of the statements in it let me know.

You "gave" nothing, except propaganda that you happened to like, no background on it or peer review. Another of your lies which you refuse to acknowledge. But as stated before, you are incapable of admitting that you are wrong and only seek to promote your lies. Pitiful of you.

If you don't want to be questioned on your lies, stop responding in this thread. You have already been exposed in your lies and lack of facts. Being stupid is no excuse.

 

[colfax_m]

You "gave" nothing, except propaganda that you happened to like, no background on it or peer review. Another of your lies which you refuse to acknowledge. But as stated before, you are incapable of admitting that you are wrong and only seek to promote your lies. Pitiful of you.

If you don't want to be questioned on your lies, stop responding in this thread. You have already been exposed in your lies and lack of facts. Being stupid is no excuse.

I don't see any questions here.

Just whining.

 

[Catman51]

I don't see any questions here.

Just whining.

You have ignored all questions, as expected from one who has no proof of anything, except that he is a liar and cannot comprehend anything but lies.

Here is a direct question for you, moron. Since you cannot convince anyone of your veracity on this topic, why don't you just stop making a fool of yourself and quit posting in this thread.

 

[colfax_m]

You have ignored all questions, as expected from one who has no proof of anything, except that he is a liar and cannot comprehend anything but lies.

Here is a direct question for you, moron. Since you cannot convince anyone of your veracity on this topic, why don't you just stop making a fool of yourself and quit posting in this thread.

Troll.

 

[Catman51]

Troll.

Yes, you are.

 

[martybegan]

It’s not. You just don’t understand the legality of the issue. Show me where they deny they have any first amendment rights as publishers. You can’t. They merely say they can’t be held liable under civil tort for the content of other users.

It’s perfectly reasonable to say they enjoy the first amendment rights to determine what speech appears on their website while still arguing they do not have liability for the information on that website.

And it’s reasonable because that’s what the law says. Section 230 protects from lawsuits, it does not abrogate their civil rights.

They claim they aren't publishers, so they don't earn 1st amendment rights as publishers. simple

If they claim first amendment rights to it, they own it.

 

[colfax_m]

They claim they aren't publishers, so they don't earn 1st amendment rights as publishers. simple

If they claim first amendment rights to it, they own it.

You are mistaken about what they claim. Social media claims to have first amendment rights as a publisher, or republisher or distributor. Exactly which is irrelevant. What is relevant is that they retain the right to make editorial decisions on what content is on their website just as a newspaper would claim the right to determine what is in their paper.

 

[martybegan]

You are mistaken about what they claim. Social media claims to have first amendment rights as a publisher, or republisher or distributor. Exactly which is irrelevant. What is relevant is that they retain the right to make editorial decisions on what content is on their website just as a newspaper would claim the right to determine what is in their paper.

They can't claim both. You are either a publisher or you are not. Just like you either a man/woman or you are not.

 

[colfax_m]

They can't claim both. You are either a publisher or you are not. Just like you either a man/woman or you are not.

At no point in time do they need to claim they’re not a publisher (or republisher or distributor which for this context isn’t relevant).

 

[martybegan]

At no point in time do they need to claim they’re not a publisher (or republisher or distributor which for this context isn’t relevant).

Yet they do, they claim the posts aren't theirs. You keep going around in circles ignoring this simple point. If the posts aren't theirs, there is no 1st amendment issue for them. If under their own tags they were forced to say something, that would be an issue.

 

[colfax_m]

Yet they do, they claim the posts aren't theirs. You keep going around in circles ignoring this simple point. If the posts aren't theirs, there is no 1st amendment issue for them. If under their own tags they were forced to say something, that would be an issue.

They posts aren’t theirs. But an OpEd in a newspaper isn’t written by the newspaper either.

It’s still a first amendment right to decide if they publish the material. I’m not ignoring this point, I’m telling you it’s irrelevant. The speech is occurring on their property which means they have a right to decide if they want to publish it or not. Whether they are the speaker doesn’t matter. Where the speech occurs does matter.

Surely you don’t think that a newspaper doesn’t have a first amendment right to decide not to publish something.

 

[martybegan]

They posts aren’t theirs. But an OpEd in a newspaper isn’t written by the newspaper either.

It’s still a first amendment right to decide if they publish the material. I’m not ignoring this point, I’m telling you it’s irrelevant. The speech is occurring on their property which means they have a right to decide if they want to publish it or not. Whether they are the speaker doesn’t matter. Where the speech occurs does matter.

Surely you don’t think that a newspaper doesn’t have a first amendment right to decide not to publish something.

Newspapers claim to be publishers, even when they post others opinions. They take responsibility for the content of those opinions via the editorial process

Social media just transports other people's content. There is no editorial discretion, just banning when they feel like it, or erasing when they feel like it. Nothing is pre-reviewed, such as with an outside editorial.

 

[colfax_m]

Newspapers claim to be publishers, even when they post others opinions. They take responsibility for the content of those opinions via the editorial process

Social media just transports other people's content. There is no editorial discretion, just banning when they feel like it, or erasing when they feel like it. Nothing is pre-reviewed, such as with an outside editorial.

If you think they just transport other people’s content, then you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

Second, banning people when they “feel like it” is exactly what editorial discretion is.

Third, there is pre-review because social media employs screening automated methods to eliminate particularly egregious material from being posted.

Last, do you know why social media doesn’t have legal responsibility for content on their website? (Which isn’t entirely true but close enough for discussion)

 

[Catman51]

At no point in time do they need to claim they’re not a publisher (or republisher or distributor which for this context isn’t relevant).

Proof would be nice since no one trusts your word on it.

 

[colfax_m]

Proof would be nice since no one trusts your word on it.

They don’t have to claim anything about being a publisher or not.

The law says it’s irrelevant.

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[martybegan]

If you think they just transport other people’s content, then you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

Second, banning people when they “feel like it” is exactly what editorial discretion is.

Third, there is pre-review because social media employs screening automated methods to eliminate particularly egregious material from being posted.

Last, do you know why social media doesn’t have legal responsibility for content on their website? (Which isn’t entirely true but close enough for discussion)

After the fact is not editorial discretion. If they screened every single post that would be editorial.

Those methods are automated and quite frankly crap.

Because they aren't publishers and don't claim to be publishers?

 

[colfax_m]

After the fact is not editorial discretion. If they screened every single post that would be editorial.

Those methods are automated and quite frankly crap.

Because they aren't publishers and don't claim to be publishers?

It’s editorial discretion whether it’s before the fact or after the fact. There’s no difference. If CNN has a story on their page they decide to pull at a later date, it’s editorial discretion.

Your last sentence is incorrect. They don’t have to claim anything to be protected. That’s what section 230 does for them. If not for section 230, they would be liable regardless of what they claimed. Their claim is irrelevant. It’s what they do that matters.