Trump Files Lawsuit Against Big Tech Over Censorship (Poll)

[CowboyTed]

Clearly the 1st amendment prohibits the government from censoring the private press. It does not compel private industry to print the copious lies of a few lunatics, no matter how powerful they are.

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are not the press lol

I believe I called them private industry. Poor Trumpybear, he has no 1st amendment rights to post his lies on any private platform.

An interactive press is something the founders could not have imagined.

But we want this to goto court...

First Witness for the defence "Mr Donald Trump"... Now they can bring up every statement he said on Twitter or Facebook... This would be a long one...
The only way for him to get off the stand is to admit he lied or drop... Also you ca only file charges against these companies in California, terms of the contract signed in the user agreement..

 

[dblack]

Youre

Clearly the 1st amendment prohibits the government from censoring the private press. It does not compel private industry to print the copious lies of a few lunatics, no matter how powerful they are.

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are not the press lol

I believe I called them private industry. Poor Trumpybear, he has no 1st amendment rights to post his lies on any private platform.

An interactive press is something the founders could not have imagined.

Your first damn sentence did ya nut

ummm, I'll bite. Why would you think anyone has a first amendment right to use a private message website/app?

I never said that. Next strawman?
They need to be regulated as a public utility because that's what they are.

Well, no, not yet. You want government to declare them to be a public utility, so the state can assert control over them. Like socialism. But we're not there yet.

I hope you lose.

 

[JimH52]

Trump may have outsmarted himself - again. These lawsuits open the door wide open for discovery interrogations.

John Dean Reveals The Huge Legal ‘Trap’ Trump Just Set For Himself​

I read that also. It will be interesting to hear how trump explains his actions leading up to and during the January 6th insurrection. I guess he doesn't realize what he has gotten his fat ars into?

 

[BlindBoo]

Clearly the 1st amendment prohibits the government from censoring the private press. It does not compel private industry to print the copious lies of a few lunatics, no matter how powerful they are.

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are not the press lol

I believe I called them private industry. Poor Trumpybear, he has no 1st amendment rights to post his lies on any private platform.

An interactive press is something the founders could not have imagined.

But we want this to goto court...

First Witness for the defence "Mr Donald Trump"... Now they can bring up every statement he said on Twitter or Facebook... This would be a long one...
The only way for him to get off the stand is to admit he lied or drop... Also you ca only file charges against these companies in California, terms of the contract signed in the user agreement..

It's a Trumpyscam.

"Come on Fans, ops, I mean Patriots, Don't let your Don Down. Donate today! He really really needs your Moral $upport now!

 

[JimH52]

Clearly the 1st amendment prohibits the government from censoring the private press. It does not compel private industry to print the copious lies of a few lunatics, no matter how powerful they are.

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are not the press lol

I believe I called them private industry. Poor Trumpybear, he has no 1st amendment rights to post his lies on any private platform.

An interactive press is something the founders could not have imagined.

But we want this to goto court...

First Witness for the defence "Mr Donald Trump"... Now they can bring up every statement he said on Twitter or Facebook... This would be a long one...
The only way for him to get off the stand is to admit he lied or drop... Also you ca only file charges against these companies in California, terms of the contract signed in the user agreement..

It's a Trumpyscam.

"Come on Fans, ops, I mean Patriots, Don't let your Don Down. Donate today! He really really needs your Moral $upport now!

Yup, just another grift from the Liar in Chief...

 

[Rigby5]

I do not like Trump, but banning him was totally illegal.
It does not matter if he lied or told the truth, that is not the business of the service provider.
The service provider can not use their own discretion in any way.
The only time the service provider can and should act, is when it is without doubt harmful, such as revenge porn or the illegal dissemination of private contract information.

The service provider can put what ever they want in a service agreement, and it does not matter.
The only thing that matters is what the FCC requires service providers to adhere to for them to be allowed on the Internet.

 

[JimH52]

I do not like Trump, but banning him was totally illegal.
It does not matter if he lied or told the truth, that is not the business of the service provider.
The service provider can not use their own discretion in any way.
The only time the service provider can and should act, is when it is without doubt harmful, such as revenge porn or the illegal dissemination of private contract information.

The service provider can put what ever they want in a service agreement, and it does not matter.
The only thing that matters is what the FCC requires service providers to adhere to for them to be allowed on the Internet.

You really are wrong. But let's let the court tell your that.

 

[dblack]

I do not like Trump, but banning him was totally illegal.

What law does it violate?

 

[BlindBoo]

I do not like Trump, but banning him was totally illegal.
It does not matter if he lied or told the truth, that is not the business of the service provider.
The service provider can not use their own discretion in any way.
The only time the service provider can and should act, is when it is without doubt harmful, such as revenge porn or the illegal dissemination of private contract information.

The service provider can put what ever they want in a service agreement, and it does not matter.
The only thing that matters is what the FCC requires service providers to adhere to for them to be allowed on the Internet.

Facebook is not a service provider. That they provide a service or services on the internet does not make them what I understand is a service provider under the FCC. You pay your service provider for access to the internet. You join facebook and accept their TOS for free.

"If you're not paying, you're not the customer — you're the product"

 

[kyzr]

I'm curious if the USMB progs/dems will side with Trump on this important censorship issue, Should big tech be broken up? Should Section 230 be repealed? Should censorship end? Should Parler be reactivated? Should the "Fairness Doctrine" be revised and tried again? What do you recommend. I recommend "all of the above".

Trump Files Lawsuit Against Big Tech Over 'Censorship Of The American People'

Former President Donald Trump said he is filing a lawsuit against Big Tech companies — Twitter, Facebook, and Google and their CEOs, over allegations of violating Americans’ First Amendment rights by selectively censoring information and its recent action of banning and suspending his accounts.

floridianpress.com

“We’re asking the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida to order an immediate halt to stop social media companies’ illegal and shameful censorship of the American people. That’s exactly what they’re doing,” Trump said. “We’re demanding an end to the shadow banning, a stop to the silencing, a stop to the blacklisting, banishing, and canceling that you know so well.”

Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi argued the platforms have “increasingly engaged in impermissible censorship resulting from threatened legislative action, a misguided reliance upon Section 230.” Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a 1996 provision that gives social media platforms legal liability shield over content posted on their platform by third parties.

I don't see the connection you apprear to be making between breaking up facebook and others and Trump's lack of any first amendment claim against private companies.

Its not really a Trump thing, he's just starting the case, its that big tech is just too damn big and they don't have enough regulation, I also support the deletion of Section 230.

 

[dblack]

I'm curious if the USMB progs/dems will side with Trump on this important censorship issue, Should big tech be broken up? Should Section 230 be repealed? Should censorship end? Should Parler be reactivated? Should the "Fairness Doctrine" be revised and tried again? What do you recommend. I recommend "all of the above".

Trump Files Lawsuit Against Big Tech Over 'Censorship Of The American People'

Former President Donald Trump said he is filing a lawsuit against Big Tech companies — Twitter, Facebook, and Google and their CEOs, over allegations of violating Americans’ First Amendment rights by selectively censoring information and its recent action of banning and suspending his accounts.

floridianpress.com

“We’re asking the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida to order an immediate halt to stop social media companies’ illegal and shameful censorship of the American people. That’s exactly what they’re doing,” Trump said. “We’re demanding an end to the shadow banning, a stop to the silencing, a stop to the blacklisting, banishing, and canceling that you know so well.”

Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi argued the platforms have “increasingly engaged in impermissible censorship resulting from threatened legislative action, a misguided reliance upon Section 230.” Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a 1996 provision that gives social media platforms legal liability shield over content posted on their platform by third parties.

I don't see the connection you apprear to be making between breaking up facebook and others and Trump's lack of any first amendment claim against private companies.

Its not really a Trump thing, he's just starting the case, its that big tech is just too damn big and they don't have enough regulation, I also support the deletion of Section 230.

MOAR REGULATION!!!!

Because that's what you do when other people won't do what you want them to do. You regulate 'em.

 

[JimH52]

I do not like Trump, but banning him was totally illegal.

What law does it violate?

The Law of trump....

 

[Skylar]

I'm curious if the USMB progs/dems will side with Trump on this important censorship issue, Should big tech be broken up? Should Section 230 be repealed? Should censorship end? Should Parler be reactivated? Should the "Fairness Doctrine" be revised and tried again? What do you recommend. I recommend "all of the above".

Trump Files Lawsuit Against Big Tech Over 'Censorship Of The American People'

Former President Donald Trump said he is filing a lawsuit against Big Tech companies — Twitter, Facebook, and Google and their CEOs, over allegations of violating Americans’ First Amendment rights by selectively censoring information and its recent action of banning and suspending his accounts.

floridianpress.com

“We’re asking the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida to order an immediate halt to stop social media companies’ illegal and shameful censorship of the American people. That’s exactly what they’re doing,” Trump said. “We’re demanding an end to the shadow banning, a stop to the silencing, a stop to the blacklisting, banishing, and canceling that you know so well.”

Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi argued the platforms have “increasingly engaged in impermissible censorship resulting from threatened legislative action, a misguided reliance upon Section 230.” Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a 1996 provision that gives social media platforms legal liability shield over content posted on their platform by third parties.

I don't see the connection you apprear to be making between breaking up facebook and others and Trump's lack of any first amendment claim against private companies.

Its not really a Trump thing, he's just starting the case, its that big tech is just too damn big and they don't have enough regulation, I also support the deletion of Section 230.

You wouldn't be able to post here if Section 230 were deleted. As the board owners would be personally liable for any batshit crazy nonsense was posted.

Most folks that want Section 230 deleted have no idea what it actually does.

 

[dblack]

It's mostly just sad to see how Trump has pied-pipered Republicans into giving up on nearly all of their political convictions. They're now on here cheering for state control of social media - the epitome of big brother government. Just so Trump can have his petty vengeance. Pathetic.

 

[dblack]

You wouldn't be able to post here if Section 230 were deleted.

They don't care. They're willing to destroy the nation, to obliterate the Constitution, in the name of partisan "victory". This is what Trump does to people.

 

[JimH52]

You wouldn't be able to post here if Section 230 were deleted.

They don't care. They're willing to destroy the nation, to obliterate the Constitution, in the name of partisan "victory". This is what Trump does to people.

trump does not care about this country. He only cares about himself and his petty revenge. He blames everyone else for his loses, but jumps to the front of the line to take credit for anything that he does not screw up.

 

[Rigby5]

I do not like Trump, but banning him was totally illegal.
It does not matter if he lied or told the truth, that is not the business of the service provider.
The service provider can not use their own discretion in any way.
The only time the service provider can and should act, is when it is without doubt harmful, such as revenge porn or the illegal dissemination of private contract information.

The service provider can put what ever they want in a service agreement, and it does not matter.
The only thing that matters is what the FCC requires service providers to adhere to for them to be allowed on the Internet.

You really are wrong. But let's let the court tell your that.

Wrong. I am an expert on FCC internet regulations, so I know that it is illegal for social media sites to discriminate based on political beliefs. About the only thing they can legally censor are criminal acts.

 

[dblack]

I do not like Trump, but banning him was totally illegal.
It does not matter if he lied or told the truth, that is not the business of the service provider.
The service provider can not use their own discretion in any way.
The only time the service provider can and should act, is when it is without doubt harmful, such as revenge porn or the illegal dissemination of private contract information.

The service provider can put what ever they want in a service agreement, and it does not matter.
The only thing that matters is what the FCC requires service providers to adhere to for them to be allowed on the Internet.

You really are wrong. But let's let the court tell your that.

Wrong. I am an expert on FCC internet regulations, so I know that it is illegal for social media sites to discriminate based on political beliefs. About the only thing they can legally censor are criminal acts.

Not to doubt your "expertise", but do you have a link to an actual law that is being violated?

 

[Rigby5]

I do not like Trump, but banning him was totally illegal.

What law does it violate?

The FCC is authorized under the Communications Act of 1934, and was given complete jurisdiction over the Internet by the DOD in 1967, when it created the Internet originally.
So then what a company like FaceBook or LinkedIn has to comply with are FCC regulations, not laws.
The 1st amendment ensure universal political expression as long as it does not harm the rights of anyone else.
Any service provider that then discriminates based on interpretation of political content, is then in violation of FCC regulations. And it does not matter what they put in their end user agreement.
It is not their internet, and they do not get to dictate how the internet is to be used.

 

[Rigby5]

I do not like Trump, but banning him was totally illegal.
It does not matter if he lied or told the truth, that is not the business of the service provider.
The service provider can not use their own discretion in any way.
The only time the service provider can and should act, is when it is without doubt harmful, such as revenge porn or the illegal dissemination of private contract information.

The service provider can put what ever they want in a service agreement, and it does not matter.
The only thing that matters is what the FCC requires service providers to adhere to for them to be allowed on the Internet.

You really are wrong. But let's let the court tell your that.

Wrong. I am an expert on FCC internet regulations, so I know that it is illegal for social media sites to discriminate based on political beliefs. About the only thing they can legally censor are criminal acts.

Not to doubt your "expertise", but do you have a link to an actual law that is being violated?

Again, laws establish jurisdiction, but actually rules are set by arbitrary FCC regulations.
And they are currently under examination as to possible reinterpretation.
So I am generalizing the original principles.
But if you want to read more as to how the FCC is proceeding, here is some interesting reading:
{...
Last week, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced his intent to move forward with a rulemaking to interpret Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. Under certain circumstances, Section 230 provides websites, including social media companies, that host or moderate content generated by others with immunity from liability. In announcing his decision, Chairman Pai noted that “[m]embers of all three branches of government have expressed serious concern about the prevailing interpretation” of Section 230, and observed that an overly broad interpretation could “shield[] social media companies from consumer protection laws in a way that has no basis in the text” of the statute.

The Chairman’s decision was consistent with my advice that the FCC has the legal authority to interpret Section 230. Due to the unique interest generated by this proceeding, Chairman Pai has now asked me to make my analysis public, in furtherance of his longstanding commitment to transparency in the rulemaking process.

The policy issues raised by the debate over Section 230 may be complex, but the FCC’s legal authority is straightforward. Simply put, the FCC has the authority to interpret all provisions of the Communications Act, including amendments such as Section 230. As I explain below, this authority flows from the plain meaning of Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, which confers on the FCC the power to issue rules necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act. By expressly directing that Section 230 be placed into the Communications Act, Congress made clear that the FCC’s rulemaking authority extended to the provisions of that section. Two seminal U.S. Supreme Court cases authored by the late Justice Antonin Scalia—AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999) and City of Arlington v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290 (2013)—confirm this conclusion. Based on this authority, the Commission can feel confident proceeding with a rulemaking to clarify the scope of the Section 230 immunity shield.

Statutory Background​

To understand why the Commission has authority to interpret Section 230, it helps to understand how that section became part of the Communications Act. In 1934, Congress adopted the Communications Act in its original form, establishing the FCC as an independent federal agency charged with regulating interstate and international communications. Four years later, Congress added Section 201(b), which delegated to the Commission the power to “prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act.”

Since then, the most consequential set of amendments to the Communications Act arrived in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which updated the Act for the then-nascent Internet age. Section 1(b) of that Act made clear that, except where otherwise expressly provided, each of the 1996 Act’s provisions were to be inserted into the Communications Act of 1934.

Title V of the 1996 Act was named the “Communications Decency Act of 1996.” Among other provisions, this Title included Section 509, named “Online family empowerment.” Consistent with Section 1(b), Congress instructed in Section 509 that “Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 . . . is amended by adding at the end the following new section: Section 230.” Thus, Section 230 was born and became part of the Communications Act of 1934.

Section 230 provides, among other things, that “[n]o 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.” It further provides that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of . . . 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.” The term “interactive computer service” is defined “as any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.” That broad definition is commonly understood to include websites that host or moderate content generated by others, such as social media companies.
...}

The FCC's Authority to Interpret Section 230 of the Communications Act

Last week, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced his intent to move forward with a rulemaking to interpret Section 230 of the C

www.fcc.gov