Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hour)   Company supported by Google, Twitter and Facebook sues Trump over executive order on social media clampdown. You can read about it all over the net   (thehour.com) divider line
    More: News, President of the United States, Trump's order, use of our platforms, Trump administration, Social media, third-party partners of cookies, Privacy Policy, government officials  
•       •       •

3873 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 03 Jun 2020 at 4:44 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



37 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2020-06-03 1:45:11 PM  
All over the net, but not on the Washington Post because I see a big black box over the article complaining that I haven't agreed to their data collection policies.

The executive order doesn't do anything. It directs agencies to think about doing something. Plaintiff will lose for lack of standing.
 
2020-06-03 4:30:46 PM  
Bu- bnu- but I've been told over and over, you can't sue the president.
 
2020-06-03 4:49:54 PM  
I don't know if you can sue a sitting Precedent but it's a no-no if he's walking to church. Murica.
 
2020-06-03 4:50:01 PM  
company supported by google twitter facebook uses old trick to make stocks go higher..
 
2020-06-03 4:52:46 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-03 4:53:20 PM  
What?  Are toothless, pointless, executive orders illegal or something?
 
2020-06-03 4:56:20 PM  
You can read about it all over the net

Well then it must be true.
/w/pop-ups
 
2020-06-03 4:59:27 PM  

edmo: [Fark user image image 500x375]


Leopards suck at hide and seek.
Because...they are always spotted.
 
2020-06-03 5:00:53 PM  
FTA:
"In response, Twitter took the unprecedented step of limiting the public's ability to view and share Trump's tweet, which the company said had glorified violence"
So they took it down? Or did they make it available only to his supporters because that's really wishy-washy.
 
2020-06-03 5:02:26 PM  
Trump could have retaliated by not Tweeting, but his tiny thumbs just wouldn't let him.
 
2020-06-03 5:06:53 PM  

ZAZ: All over the net, but not on the Washington Post because I see a big black box over the article complaining that I haven't agreed to their data collection policies.

The executive order doesn't do anything. It directs agencies to think about doing something. Plaintiff will lose for lack of standing.


At least read the pleading before you make an uneducated comment: https://cdt.org/wp-content/u​ploads/202​0/06/1-2020-cv-01456-0001-COMPLAINT-ag​ainst-DONALD-J-TRUMP-filed-by-CENTER-F​O-et-seq.pdf
 
2020-06-03 5:07:30 PM  

Resident Muslim: FTA:
"In response, Twitter took the unprecedented step of limiting the public's ability to view and share Trump's tweet, which the company said had glorified violence"
So they took it down? Or did they make it available only to his supporters because that's really wishy-washy.


Neither! They made you HAVE TO CLICK A BUTTON TO SEE IT! The horror!
 
2020-06-03 5:11:47 PM  
Just for the record, here's what would happen if the order went into effect somehow:

1. Trump would be insta-banned from every social media platform except that one that caters to neo-Nazis who got banned from Twitter.

2. "Thank you for submitting your cute kitten video to YouTube. Before we post it, we must first verify that it contains no prohibited content that would leave us open to lawsuits. Your estimated wait time is 43,051,668 days."

3. Trump would eventually figure out why his Twitter phone wasn't working and order San Francisco nuked.

3a. Mark Esper would claim he only obeyed that order because didn't know Trump meant THAT San Francisco.
 
2020-06-03 5:18:32 PM  

semiotix: Just for the record, here's what would happen if the order went into effect somehow:

1. Trump would be insta-banned from every social media platform except that one that caters to neo-Nazis who got banned from Twitter.

2. "Thank you for submitting your cute kitten video to YouTube. Before we post it, we must first verify that it contains no prohibited content that would leave us open to lawsuits. Your estimated wait time is 43,051,668 days."

3. Trump would eventually figure out why his Twitter phone wasn't working and order San Francisco nuked.

3a. Mark Esper would claim he only obeyed that order because didn't know Trump meant THAT San Francisco.


Alternatively, they could act like platforms and none of this would need to happen.
 
2020-06-03 5:24:13 PM  
Every one of them has more money in their petty cash drawer than Trump has in his Deutsch Bank accounts.
 
2020-06-03 5:34:09 PM  

semiotix: Just for the record, here's what would happen if the order went into effect somehow:

1. Trump would be insta-banned from every social media platform except that one that caters to neo-Nazis who got banned from Twitter.

2. "Thank you for submitting your cute kitten video to YouTube. Before we post it, we must first verify that it contains no prohibited content that would leave us open to lawsuits. Your estimated wait time is 43,051,668 days."

3. Trump would eventually figure out why his Twitter phone wasn't working and order San Francisco nuked.

3a. Mark Esper would claim he only obeyed that order because didn't know Trump meant THAT San Francisco.


This is comment of the year material. Not enough THIS can be said.
 
2020-06-03 5:52:39 PM  

Resident Muslim: FTA:
"In response, Twitter took the unprecedented step of limiting the public's ability to view and share Trump's tweet, which the company said had glorified violence"
So they took it down? Or did they make it available only to his supporters because that's really wishy-washy.


It has a warning like (paraphrasing) "sensitive material ahead that glorifies violence" then you hit "view" and it shows it to you.  So anyone, including people without twitter can see it on his page.
 
2020-06-03 5:57:56 PM  

meanmutton: ZAZ: All over the net, but not on the Washington Post because I see a big black box over the article complaining that I haven't agreed to their data collection policies.

The executive order doesn't do anything. It directs agencies to think about doing something. Plaintiff will lose for lack of standing.

At least read the pleading before you make an uneducated comment: https://cdt.org/wp-content/up​loads/2020/06/1-2020-cv-01456-0001-COM​PLAINT-against-DONALD-J-TRUMP-filed-by​-CENTER-FO-et-seq.pdf


He's not wrong.  The EO has been thoro8ghly gone over by lawyers.  All it does is tell state level AG's to check to see if they're breaking any state laws and if so get them on it, and then see if the laws can be changed.  Section 230 is part of the copyright law...  copyright law is part of the constitution.  President CANNOT CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION with and executive order.

The last part of the EO is the best it basically states:

If this is unlawful it is unenforceable.

If congress doesnt appropriate funds to follow through with any of this we can't actually do any of it.

So it is going to take congress passing funding before anything happens and then if it doesn't pass on a legal term it does nothing.

This lawsuit here is basically requesting an injunction to block them from even attempting the looking into part.  So it is pre-emptive lawsuit to stop them from trying to look into if they can ammendment the constitution.
 
2020-06-03 5:59:12 PM  

pedrop357: semiotix: Just for the record, here's what would happen if the order went into effect somehow:

1. Trump would be insta-banned from every social media platform except that one that caters to neo-Nazis who got banned from Twitter.

2. "Thank you for submitting your cute kitten video to YouTube. Before we post it, we must first verify that it contains no prohibited content that would leave us open to lawsuits. Your estimated wait time is 43,051,668 days."

3. Trump would eventually figure out why his Twitter phone wasn't working and order San Francisco nuked.

3a. Mark Esper would claim he only obeyed that order because didn't know Trump meant THAT San Francisco.

Alternatively, they could act like platforms and none of this would need to happen.


Those are definitely words you typed, but they don't make sense to anything that is being discussed.
 
2020-06-03 6:19:23 PM  
Miller said it clearly: Trump sees Twitter had his way of talking directly to his supporters without any outside filtering and his political life is built on that.

Problem is, Twitter belongs to someone else, and you have to follow their rules or Twitter can exclude you. Heck, accessing Twitter to do things not permitted by the company is literally a federal felony. It's part of their definition of hacking.

This is just Trump being a bully because that is all he has, and he can't even get an EO crafted that would pass muster in a court because it's entire premise is contrary to statutory law. He cannot legally access Twitter to post things again at Twitter's terms and conditions, and his EO didn't even try to address the law that this conflicts with. Yes, it tries to pick a fight over safe harbor provisions.

Hell, the safe harbor provisions should in fact be read in his disfavor. They are being forced to act against him as he is a repeated and willful violator of their decency standards and could lose their protection as a platform if they take no action against such a high profile violator.
 
2020-06-03 6:30:41 PM  

dkulprit: meanmutton: ZAZ: All over the net, but not on the Washington Post because I see a big black box over the article complaining that I haven't agreed to their data collection policies.

The executive order doesn't do anything. It directs agencies to think about doing something. Plaintiff will lose for lack of standing.

At least read the pleading before you make an uneducated comment: https://cdt.org/wp-content/up​loads/2020/06/1-2020-cv-01456-0001-COM​PLAINT-against-DONALD-J-TRUMP-filed-by​-CENTER-FO-et-seq.pdf

He's not wrong.  The EO has been thoro8ghly gone over by lawyers.  All it does is tell state level AG's to check to see if they're breaking any state laws and if so get them on it, and then see if the laws can be changed.  Section 230 is part of the copyright law...  copyright law is part of the constitution.  President CANNOT CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION with and executive order.

The last part of the EO is the best it basically states:

If this is unlawful it is unenforceable.

If congress doesnt appropriate funds to follow through with any of this we can't actually do any of it.

So it is going to take congress passing funding before anything happens and then if it doesn't pass on a legal term it does nothing.

This lawsuit here is basically requesting an injunction to block them from even attempting the looking into part.  So it is pre-emptive lawsuit to stop them from trying to look into if they can ammendment the constitution.


Ripeness aside, I'm having trouble finding the plaintiff's concrete injury in fact pleaded with sufficient particularity. If you ain't been hurt or immediately will be, you don't have standing (as someone further up-thread guessed).
 
2020-06-03 7:28:43 PM  

pedrop357: Alternatively, they could act like platforms and none of this would need to happen.


Why should they?
 
2020-06-03 7:33:21 PM  

jso2897: pedrop357: Alternatively, they could act like platforms and none of this would need to happen.

Why should they?


If they want to be publishers, they can reap the responsibility that comes with that level of control.
 
2020-06-03 7:33:22 PM  

zobear: dkulprit: meanmutton: ZAZ: All over the net, but not on the Washington Post because I see a big black box over the article complaining that I haven't agreed to their data collection policies.

The executive order doesn't do anything. It directs agencies to think about doing something. Plaintiff will lose for lack of standing.

At least read the pleading before you make an uneducated comment: https://cdt.org/wp-content/up​loads/2020/06/1-2020-cv-01456-0001-COM​PLAINT-against-DONALD-J-TRUMP-filed-by​-CENTER-FO-et-seq.pdf

He's not wrong.  The EO has been thoro8ghly gone over by lawyers.  All it does is tell state level AG's to check to see if they're breaking any state laws and if so get them on it, and then see if the laws can be changed.  Section 230 is part of the copyright law...  copyright law is part of the constitution.  President CANNOT CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION with and executive order.

The last part of the EO is the best it basically states:

If this is unlawful it is unenforceable.

If congress doesnt appropriate funds to follow through with any of this we can't actually do any of it.

So it is going to take congress passing funding before anything happens and then if it doesn't pass on a legal term it does nothing.

This lawsuit here is basically requesting an injunction to block them from even attempting the looking into part.  So it is pre-emptive lawsuit to stop them from trying to look into if they can ammendment the constitution.

Ripeness aside, I'm having trouble finding the plaintiff's concrete injury in fact pleaded with sufficient particularity. If you ain't been hurt or immediately will be, you don't have standing (as someone further up-thread guessed).


But there is a controversy and it is possible to sue for injunctive relief based on irreparable harm.
 
2020-06-03 8:02:29 PM  

pedrop357: jso2897: pedrop357: Alternatively, they could act like platforms and none of this would need to happen.

Why should they?

If they want to be publishers, they can reap the responsibility that comes with that level of control.


You just have away where you get your news sources and actually know absolutely nothing about how the law actually works or their definitions.

So two things about that...

1. by trump calling them a platform in his EO he legally called them a platform.  So bye bye to that argument.

2.  A publisher is something like a news company posting an article on their site.  So a journalist will post an article and that article is then Edited by the editor.

Side note: a site can be a publisher and a platform.  So a news site for example will be a publisher in the articles they post, but then a platform for the comments for said article.

Posting warnings or a link to sources that dispute is not editing in any legal definition,especially in section 230, no matter your feelings on the matter.  This is well established in case law.

Section 509 added during the creation of the CDA overrode the Stratton Oakmont decision that said moderating comments made them publishers. (Even though in that case they literally edited the posted words not adding a warning or links to contradictory factual information)

So you're wrong on many levels.  Should probably do your own research instead of regurgitating right wing pundit garbage talking points that are bullshiat and factually wrong.

By the way, fark falls under this as they edit your actual words.  Because if type fark, it doesn't type the actual word...  and guess what?  They're still not a publisher.
 
2020-06-03 8:14:22 PM  

dkulprit: meanmutton: ZAZ: All over the net, but not on the Washington Post because I see a big black box over the article complaining that I haven't agreed to their data collection policies.

The executive order doesn't do anything. It directs agencies to think about doing something. Plaintiff will lose for lack of standing.

At least read the pleading before you make an uneducated comment: https://cdt.org/wp-content/up​loads/2020/06/1-2020-cv-01456-0001-COM​PLAINT-against-DONALD-J-TRUMP-filed-by​-CENTER-FO-et-seq.pdf

He's not wrong.  The EO has been thoro8ghly gone over by lawyers.  All it does is tell state level AG's to check to see if they're breaking any state laws and if so get them on it, and then see if the laws can be changed.  Section 230 is part of the copyright law...  copyright law is part of the constitution.  President CANNOT CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION with and executive order.

The last part of the EO is the best it basically states:

If this is unlawful it is unenforceable.

If congress doesnt appropriate funds to follow through with any of this we can't actually do any of it.

So it is going to take congress passing funding before anything happens and then if it doesn't pass on a legal term it does nothing.

This lawsuit here is basically requesting an injunction to block them from even attempting the looking into part.  So it is pre-emptive lawsuit to stop them from trying to look into if they can ammendment the constitution.


Enforceable or not - it is Unconstitutional for the President to threaten this at all.
 
2020-06-03 8:20:35 PM  

ZAZ: All over the net, but not on the Washington Post because I see a big black box over the article complaining that I haven't agreed to their data collection policies.

The executive order doesn't do anything. It directs agencies to think about doing something. Plaintiff will lose for lack of standing.


Look, subscription to support some of the finest investigative journalism currently available is not that expensive; or you can take the time to learn the tools that allow that hurdle to be easily circumvented.
 
2020-06-03 8:27:37 PM  

meanmutton: dkulprit: meanmutton: ZAZ: All over the net, but not on the Washington Post because I see a big black box over the article complaining that I haven't agreed to their data collection policies.

The executive order doesn't do anything. It directs agencies to think about doing something. Plaintiff will lose for lack of standing.

At least read the pleading before you make an uneducated comment: https://cdt.org/wp-content/up​loads/2020/06/1-2020-cv-01456-0001-COM​PLAINT-against-DONALD-J-TRUMP-filed-by​-CENTER-FO-et-seq.pdf

He's not wrong.  The EO has been thoro8ghly gone over by lawyers.  All it does is tell state level AG's to check to see if they're breaking any state laws and if so get them on it, and then see if the laws can be changed.  Section 230 is part of the copyright law...  copyright law is part of the constitution.  President CANNOT CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION with and executive order.

The last part of the EO is the best it basically states:

If this is unlawful it is unenforceable.

If congress doesnt appropriate funds to follow through with any of this we can't actually do any of it.

So it is going to take congress passing funding before anything happens and then if it doesn't pass on a legal term it does nothing.

This lawsuit here is basically requesting an injunction to block them from even attempting the looking into part.  So it is pre-emptive lawsuit to stop them from trying to look into if they can ammendment the constitution.

Enforceable or not - it is Unconstitutional for the President to threaten this at all.


For sure!
 
2020-06-03 8:39:48 PM  
You can read about it anywhere. Just not the Washington Paywall.
 
2020-06-03 9:54:59 PM  

dkulprit: zobear: dkulprit: meanmutton: ZAZ: All over the net, but not on the Washington Post because I see a big black box over the article complaining that I haven't agreed to their data collection policies.

The executive order doesn't do anything. It directs agencies to think about doing something. Plaintiff will lose for lack of standing.

At least read the pleading before you make an uneducated comment: https://cdt.org/wp-content/up​loads/2020/06/1-2020-cv-01456-0001-COM​PLAINT-against-DONALD-J-TRUMP-filed-by​-CENTER-FO-et-seq.pdf

He's not wrong.  The EO has been thoro8ghly gone over by lawyers.  All it does is tell state level AG's to check to see if they're breaking any state laws and if so get them on it, and then see if the laws can be changed.  Section 230 is part of the copyright law...  copyright law is part of the constitution.  President CANNOT CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION with and executive order.

The last part of the EO is the best it basically states:

If this is unlawful it is unenforceable.

If congress doesnt appropriate funds to follow through with any of this we can't actually do any of it.

So it is going to take congress passing funding before anything happens and then if it doesn't pass on a legal term it does nothing.

This lawsuit here is basically requesting an injunction to block them from even attempting the looking into part.  So it is pre-emptive lawsuit to stop them from trying to look into if they can ammendment the constitution.

Ripeness aside, I'm having trouble finding the plaintiff's concrete injury in fact pleaded with sufficient particularity. If you ain't been hurt or immediately will be, you don't have standing (as someone further up-thread guessed).

But there is a controversy and it is possible to sue for injunctive relief based on irreparable harm.


Not if you don't have standing.
 
2020-06-03 10:04:15 PM  

zobear: dkulprit: zobear: dkulprit: meanmutton: ZAZ: All over the net, but not on the Washington Post because I see a big black box over the article complaining that I haven't agreed to their data collection policies.

The executive order doesn't do anything. It directs agencies to think about doing something. Plaintiff will lose for lack of standing.

At least read the pleading before you make an uneducated comment: https://cdt.org/wp-content/up​loads/2020/06/1-2020-cv-01456-0001-COM​PLAINT-against-DONALD-J-TRUMP-filed-by​-CENTER-FO-et-seq.pdf

He's not wrong.  The EO has been thoro8ghly gone over by lawyers.  All it does is tell state level AG's to check to see if they're breaking any state laws and if so get them on it, and then see if the laws can be changed.  Section 230 is part of the copyright law...  copyright law is part of the constitution.  President CANNOT CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION with and executive order.

The last part of the EO is the best it basically states:

If this is unlawful it is unenforceable.

If congress doesnt appropriate funds to follow through with any of this we can't actually do any of it.

So it is going to take congress passing funding before anything happens and then if it doesn't pass on a legal term it does nothing.

This lawsuit here is basically requesting an injunction to block them from even attempting the looking into part.  So it is pre-emptive lawsuit to stop them from trying to look into if they can ammendment the constitution.

Ripeness aside, I'm having trouble finding the plaintiff's concrete injury in fact pleaded with sufficient particularity. If you ain't been hurt or immediately will be, you don't have standing (as someone further up-thread guessed).

But there is a controversy and it is possible to sue for injunctive relief based on irreparable harm.

Not if you don't have standing.


If they're a social media company or if they host comments on their site they would have standing.  But by the looks of it it is a special interest group suing.  So they would have standing.  Kind of like the ACLU suing the trump administration and police departments on behalf of the people of the US with no specific plaintiffs in mind.  Which is happening right now.
 
2020-06-03 10:22:47 PM  

zobear: dkulprit: zobear: dkulprit: meanmutton: ZAZ: All over the net, but not on the Washington Post because I see a big black box over the article complaining that I haven't agreed to their data collection policies.

The executive order doesn't do anything. It directs agencies to think about doing something. Plaintiff will lose for lack of standing.

At least read the pleading before you make an uneducated comment: https://cdt.org/wp-content/up​loads/2020/06/1-2020-cv-01456-0001-COM​PLAINT-against-DONALD-J-TRUMP-filed-by​-CENTER-FO-et-seq.pdf

He's not wrong.  The EO has been thoro8ghly gone over by lawyers.  All it does is tell state level AG's to check to see if they're breaking any state laws and if so get them on it, and then see if the laws can be changed.  Section 230 is part of the copyright law...  copyright law is part of the constitution.  President CANNOT CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION with and executive order.

The last part of the EO is the best it basically states:

If this is unlawful it is unenforceable.

If congress doesnt appropriate funds to follow through with any of this we can't actually do any of it.

So it is going to take congress passing funding before anything happens and then if it doesn't pass on a legal term it does nothing.

This lawsuit here is basically requesting an injunction to block them from even attempting the looking into part.  So it is pre-emptive lawsuit to stop them from trying to look into if they can ammendment the constitution.

Ripeness aside, I'm having trouble finding the plaintiff's concrete injury in fact pleaded with sufficient particularity. If you ain't been hurt or immediately will be, you don't have standing (as someone further up-thread guessed).

But there is a controversy and it is possible to sue for injunctive relief based on irreparable harm.

Not if you don't have standing.


Here's a book on the subject.

The Rights of Others: Protection and Advocacy Organizations' Associational Standing to Sue
 
2020-06-04 12:31:52 AM  

dkulprit: pedrop357: jso2897: pedrop357: Alternatively, they could act like platforms and none of this would need to happen.

Why should they?

If they want to be publishers, they can reap the responsibility that comes with that level of control.

You just have away where you get your news sources and actually know absolutely nothing about how the law actually works or their definitions.

So two things about that...

1. by trump calling them a platform in his EO he legally called them a platform.  So bye bye to that argument.

2.  A publisher is something like a news company posting an article on their site.  So a journalist will post an article and that article is then Edited by the editor.

Side note: a site can be a publisher and a platform.  So a news site for example will be a publisher in the articles they post, but then a platform for the comments for said article.

Posting warnings or a link to sources that dispute is not editing in any legal definition,especially in section 230, no matter your feelings on the matter.  This is well established in case law.

Section 509 added during the creation of the CDA overrode the Stratton Oakmont decision that said moderating comments made them publishers. (Even though in that case they literally edited the posted words not adding a warning or links to contradictory factual information)

So you're wrong on many levels.  Should probably do your own research instead of regurgitating right wing pundit garbage talking points that are bullshiat and factually wrong.

By the way, fark falls under this as they edit your actual words.  Because if type fark, it doesn't type the actual word...  and guess what?  They're still not a publisher.


I suppose that depends on the courts.    Twitter picks and chooses who can make threats, tell lies, etc.  That puts them much closer to the publisher side of things.
 
2020-06-04 2:52:57 AM  

pedrop357: dkulprit: pedrop357: jso2897: pedrop357: Alternatively, they could act like platforms and none of this would need to happen.

Why should they?

If they want to be publishers, they can reap the responsibility that comes with that level of control.

You just have away where you get your news sources and actually know absolutely nothing about how the law actually works or their definitions.

So two things about that...

1. by trump calling them a platform in his EO he legally called them a platform.  So bye bye to that argument.

2.  A publisher is something like a news company posting an article on their site.  So a journalist will post an article and that article is then Edited by the editor.

Side note: a site can be a publisher and a platform.  So a news site for example will be a publisher in the articles they post, but then a platform for the comments for said article.

Posting warnings or a link to sources that dispute is not editing in any legal definition,especially in section 230, no matter your feelings on the matter.  This is well established in case law.

Section 509 added during the creation of the CDA overrode the Stratton Oakmont decision that said moderating comments made them publishers. (Even though in that case they literally edited the posted words not adding a warning or links to contradictory factual information)

So you're wrong on many levels.  Should probably do your own research instead of regurgitating right wing pundit garbage talking points that are bullshiat and factually wrong.

By the way, fark falls under this as they edit your actual words.  Because if type fark, it doesn't type the actual word...  and guess what?  They're still not a publisher.

I suppose that depends on the courts.    Twitter picks and chooses who can make threats, tell lies, etc.  That puts them much closer to the publisher side of things.


Moves the goalposts and a strawman.

It doesn't depend on the courts.  You still don't understand the difference between a publisher and a platform in the legal terms that define section 230.  It's like the people on here always calling for 1st degree murder because someone shot someone so that obviously shows intent.

That's not how this works.

A very basic breakdown of the two goes like this.  A platform is equivalent of a news stand.  They don't know what's coming out in a newspapers or magazines they sell, so they can't be held liable for what those say when they hit the newsstand.

A publisher on the other hand is a publisher.  They read the work beforehand, so they SHOULD KNOW if there are defamatory or other illegal content in them before they publish.

In the most basic sense, that's it.  It's what you know and when.  It's not how the speech is moderated once it is posted, it's not if they take down posts.  It's not banning a user.


So if you had to submit tweets beforehand for review before they were posted and they still posted defamatory or illegal stuff, it would be a publisher.

It comes down to basic knowledge of what was known before the "works'" were published before they were distributed.

Banning someone does not bring them under publication side of things.

Taking someone's tweet down is not considered a publisher.

No matter how much your feeling make it so.  This is well defined law.  This will require an ammendment to the constitution to change to make your feeling valid.

See Jane Doe Vs AOL.  Her 11 year old son took pornographic pictures with an adult man and than man was selling pics on AOL.  When aol found out they took the images down.  The argument was that since they found them and took them down they knew about it... and she lost.  Because AOL had/has no knowledge of what said person was posting, no matter how ficking disgusting, AOL had no liability in their actions. If that doesn't meet the criteria or be willing to bend it so that sick fark couldn't post Child Porn on AOL twitter is not getting a ruling in the other direction because some fee fees were hurt because hateful posts were taken down or a false news warning was put on it.

People don't get banned from Twitter for their political views.  They get banned for outright hatred or calls for violence.  They don't get banned or even edited (if false) for talking about the fiscal policies that are superior over democrats.

So one, you're comparing apples to oranges on this.  Show all the "liberal lies" that skate by unscathed.  While the "conservatives" are banned for innocuous tweets.

Maybe they shouldn't be posting outright lies, hatred, or and calls for violence for a change?  There are tons of conservative people on twitter that have not had a single negative action taken against them... why?  Because it's not their political views that are getting them banned or their tweets taken down.

Unless of course you're claiming racism, calls for violence, sexism, threats of rape, threats of violence, and anti-semitism is a political platform now....

Are you?

Because people keep skating around that issue.

Also people keep getting 230 wrong to begin with.  230 PROTECTS FREE SPEECH.  It's not about punishing anyone for anything, it's about protecting the rights of free speech by making companies or people not liable FOR OTHER PEOPLE'S WORDS.

So by removing these protections (won't happen because the eo is toothless and nobody is amending the constitution and big businesses (including fox news websites) would then be held liable for their posters actions.

So those people in the fox news articles that claim sandy hook was a hoax and call for violence against those "actors" fox would then be on the hook for those defamatory statements.  I use that as an example because those statements have been found as defamatory, and since finding those anonymous posters would be damn near impossible, guess who is on the hook?  FoX NEWS.  You think they're going to want to alienate their base by deleting their comments?  Nah.  So they'll fight it too.  Daily stormer would be sued out of existence.  Gab gone.  Fox would moderate the shiat out of their forums. 4chan gone.  8 chan even goner. Any at risk creator on YouTube like Stefan Molyneaux, Black Pigeon Speaks, and their ilk would be deplatformed.

So go ahead wish this to happen.  Good bye for any of these sorts of people on the internet as safe harbors would be gone and you'd have to revert to street corner yelling.

Maybe this would be a good thing.  Maybe we could get the alt right to adjudicate all these "liberal lies" they keep complaining about and show that... they're not by a court case.

So much for free speech they love touting, they wouldn't have any and are actively trying to shut it down.
 
2020-06-04 3:28:00 AM  

dkulprit: zobear: dkulprit: zobear: dkulprit: meanmutton: ZAZ: All over the net, but not on the Washington Post because I see a big black box over the article complaining that I haven't agreed to their data collection policies.

The executive order doesn't do anything. It directs agencies to think about doing something. Plaintiff will lose for lack of standing.

At least read the pleading before you make an uneducated comment: https://cdt.org/wp-content/up​loads/2020/06/1-2020-cv-01456-0001-COM​PLAINT-against-DONALD-J-TRUMP-filed-by​-CENTER-FO-et-seq.pdf

He's not wrong.  The EO has been thoro8ghly gone over by lawyers.  All it does is tell state level AG's to check to see if they're breaking any state laws and if so get them on it, and then see if the laws can be changed.  Section 230 is part of the copyright law...  copyright law is part of the constitution.  President CANNOT CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION with and executive order.

The last part of the EO is the best it basically states:

If this is unlawful it is unenforceable.

If congress doesnt appropriate funds to follow through with any of this we can't actually do any of it.

So it is going to take congress passing funding before anything happens and then if it doesn't pass on a legal term it does nothing.

This lawsuit here is basically requesting an injunction to block them from even attempting the looking into part.  So it is pre-emptive lawsuit to stop them from trying to look into if they can ammendment the constitution.

Ripeness aside, I'm having trouble finding the plaintiff's concrete injury in fact pleaded with sufficient particularity. If you ain't been hurt or immediately will be, you don't have standing (as someone further up-thread guessed).

But there is a controversy and it is possible to sue for injunctive relief based on irreparable harm.

Not if you don't have standing.

Here's a book on the subject.

The Rights of Others: Protection and Advocacy Organizations' Associational Standing to Sue


I'm not saying they couldn't have standing. I'm saying, I read the complaint and did not really buy their argument that they have suffered some injury, which is required for standing.
 
2020-06-04 3:59:12 AM  
"We're here today to defend consequence-free speech from one of the greatest dangers," Trump said before signing the document.

Turning a lie into the truth with the addition of one word.
 
2020-06-04 2:24:08 PM  

zobear: dkulprit: zobear: dkulprit: zobear: dkulprit: meanmutton: ZAZ: All over the net, but not on the Washington Post because I see a big black box over the article complaining that I haven't agreed to their data collection policies.

The executive order doesn't do anything. It directs agencies to think about doing something. Plaintiff will lose for lack of standing.

At least read the pleading before you make an uneducated comment: https://cdt.org/wp-content/up​loads/2020/06/1-2020-cv-01456-0001-COM​PLAINT-against-DONALD-J-TRUMP-filed-by​-CENTER-FO-et-seq.pdf

He's not wrong.  The EO has been thoro8ghly gone over by lawyers.  All it does is tell state level AG's to check to see if they're breaking any state laws and if so get them on it, and then see if the laws can be changed.  Section 230 is part of the copyright law...  copyright law is part of the constitution.  President CANNOT CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION with and executive order.

The last part of the EO is the best it basically states:

If this is unlawful it is unenforceable.

If congress doesnt appropriate funds to follow through with any of this we can't actually do any of it.

So it is going to take congress passing funding before anything happens and then if it doesn't pass on a legal term it does nothing.

This lawsuit here is basically requesting an injunction to block them from even attempting the looking into part.  So it is pre-emptive lawsuit to stop them from trying to look into if they can ammendment the constitution.

Ripeness aside, I'm having trouble finding the plaintiff's concrete injury in fact pleaded with sufficient particularity. If you ain't been hurt or immediately will be, you don't have standing (as someone further up-thread guessed).

But there is a controversy and it is possible to sue for injunctive relief based on irreparable harm.

Not if you don't have standing.

Here's a book on the subject.

The Rights of Others: Protection and Advocacy Organizations' Associational Standing to Sue

I'm not saying they couldn't have standing. I'm saying, I read the complaint and did not really buy their argument that they have suffered some injury, which is required for standing.


If there is controversy you only need to prove standing as in it will effect you and if there is a chance of irreparable harm an injury does not in fact have to occur as long as the threat of an injury leading to irreparable harm is there.


Moreover, while Congress has the power to define injuries and articulate "chains of causation" that will give rise to a case or controversy, a plaintiff does not "automatically satisf[y] the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a person a statutory right and purports to authorize a person to sue to vindicate that right."427
From:  had to add some spaces in URL as fark didn't like it.  Remove those from after the Cornell.  If you want to learn more.

Lawful masses has a video on this.  Trying to find it too.
law.cornell.  edu/constitution-conan/article-3/secti​on-2/clause-1/constitutional-standards​-injury-in-fact-causation-and-redressa​bility
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.