State-Sponsored Censorship

[EvMetro]

This is such a common pattern with you. You think you can just make shit up, shit that is 100% demonstrably false, and then just keep harping on it as though it's true. Does that work for you in real life?

What are you disputing?

 

[colfax_m]

The key point of the article was the implied threat, murmured consistently by Democrats (and Republicans), to repeal 230 if these companies failed to do the government's bidding. This is exactly why I think we SHOULD repeal 230. It would be quickly replaced by court precedent preserving a similar policy, but it would no longer be at the mercy of Congress, no longer a threat the state can hold over the heads of internet businesses.

The court precedent is already set which is why 230 was passed in the first place. I think that extending this logic would result in massive disruption. Government often encourages private industry to do things. Just think about government pushing back on any piece of journalism. They could never do so.

 

[colfax_m]

Cute. Re read the referenced court case. You are fighting HARD to defend censorship, including government sponsored censorship.

Cmon man. You really can do better than that. The reference court case had the government providing material support to a school in the form of textbook. That is sponsorship.

The government isn’t providing material support to social media.

 

[EvMetro]

Cmon man. You really can do better than that. The reference court case had the government providing material support to a school in the form of textbook. That is sponsorship.

The government isn’t providing material support to social media.

So you are disputing that the government is encouraging social media to do what they aren't allowed to do?

 

[jc456]

Another example of state sponsored censorship:

Jen Psaki

"Our hope is that all major tech platforms and all major news sources for that matter be responsible and be vigilant...we want every platform to continue doing more..."

White House Advocates for Big Tech to Censor Health Experts They Disagree With

townhall.com

isn't that illegal?

 

[jc456]

Cmon man. You really can do better than that. The reference court case had the government providing material support to a school in the form of textbook. That is sponsorship.

The government isn’t providing material support to social media.

well explain why the government should say anything exactly?

 

[Papageorgio]

Considering this has been debunked in the previous threads I shall let you wallow in yer own juices.

Debunked? LOL! No, it hasn't just you pretending.

 

[dblack]

What are you disputing?

Your blatant lie that I fight to defend state sponsored censorship. It's like you don't even read the posts you respond to. If you sense that someone is disagreeing with you, in any way, you simply assign them the label of the enemy ("leftists" or whatever) and launch the usual stereotypical accusations.

 

[dblack]

The court precedent is already set which is why 230 was passed in the first place.

It was passed as a law so Congress could control it, and lord it over companies with the implied threat of removing it.

I think that extending this logic would result in massive disruption.

Only for bit. Correcting mistakes is often like that.

Government often encourages private industry to do things.

Which is outside the proper bounds of government. Protect our rights - skip the "encouragment".

Just think about government pushing back on any piece of journalism. They could never do so.

"Pushing back"??

 

[EvMetro]

Your blatant lie that I fight to defend state sponsored censorship. It's like you don't even read the posts you respond to. If you sense that someone is disagreeing with you, in any way, you simply assign them the label of the enemy ("leftists" or whatever) and launch the usual stereotypical accusations.

Can you show me a censorship thread where you are not trying to justify censorship?

 

[dblack]

Can you show me a censorship thread where you are not trying to justify censorship?

Don't start equivocating. We're talking state-sponsored censorship. Show me a thread where I have supported such a thing. When you fail, come back and apologize for lying.

 

[EvMetro]

Don't start equivocating. We're talking state-sponsored censorship. Show me a thread where I have supported such a thing. When you fail, come back and apologize for lying.

This very thread.

 

[dblack]

This very thread.

Find the post. You're wrong. Admit it.

 

[bendog]

If spotify knows, or should know, that Rogan is using their site to spread lies .... there's no censorship. There's no first amendment right to lie.

 

[EvMetro]

Do you think Twitter should be forced to host Trump's tweets? Should Facebook be allowed to ban him, or flag his posts?

"Forced to host" is a strawman and a red herring. The government is calling on the private sector arms of the government to do what it is forbidden to do.

 

[EvMetro]

If spotify knows, or should know, that Rogan is using their site to spread lies .... there's no censorship. There's no first amendment right to lie.

This thread is not about what Spotify is doing or should do. It is about the government encouraging the private sector to do what government is not allowed to do.

 

[EvMetro]

Once again, for the lefties:

In a landmark 1973 case, Norwood v. Harrison, the Supreme Court held that government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”

 

[jc456]

Debunked? LOL! No, it hasn't just you pretending.

Just him ignoring facts again

 

[bendog]

This thread is not about what Spotify is doing or should do. It is about the government encouraging the private sector to do what government is not allowed to do.

Your link
Two leading officials of the federal government—the press secretary and the surgeon general—have revealed the Biden administration’s plan to coordinate with social media platforms to censor dissident voices that disagree with the official position on COVID-19 and the efficacy of vaccines. This raises First Amendment concerns of the highest order.

The fed govt can pressure any social media to remove lies, and there's no first amend right to publish what is known, or should be known, is a lie.

 

[dblack]

"Forced to host" is a strawman and a red herring. The government is calling on the private sector arms of the government to do what it is forbidden to do.

Dance, dance, dance.

Do you think Twitter should be forced to host Trump's tweets? Should Facebook be allowed to ban him, or flag his posts?